Court’s Decision
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court quashed an FIR and charge-sheet filed against a wife accused of conspiring with another to eliminate her husband using black magic and other acts. The Court held that the allegations were vague, omnibus, and not supported by material evidence. It ruled: “The FIR and consequent charge-sheet is nothing but abuse of process of law.”
Facts of the Case
- The applicant-wife sought quashing of FIR No.154/2019 dated 01.06.2019 registered at Mankapur Police Station, Nagpur, under Sections 307, 452, 511, 120B IPC and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Black Magic Act, 2013.
- The complainant was her husband, who alleged that between 16–31 May 2019, small flour statues, lemons with nails pierced and inscriptions such as “Pushpa Mrutyu” were found in his compound.
- On 31 May 2019, one Dilip Jaiswal was found loitering near the house. Upon checking, WhatsApp chats between him and the applicant were discovered. The husband alleged a conspiracy to kill him through black magic and other means.
- The police filed charge-sheet No.72/2019 based on these allegations.
Issues
- Whether the FIR and charge-sheet disclosed a prima facie case under IPC Sections 307, 452, 511, 120B.
- Whether the allegations attracted Section 3 of the Maharashtra Black Magic Act, 2013.
- Whether continuing the prosecution amounted to abuse of process.
Petitioner’s Arguments (Applicant-wife)
- The FIR was retaliatory, filed as a counterblast to her own complaint against her husband’s family.
- No role was attributed to her in the alleged incidents of flour statues and lemons.
- WhatsApp chats alone could not constitute conspiracy.
- No ingredients of the charged offences were made out; therefore, FIR and charge-sheet deserved to be quashed.
Respondent’s Arguments (State and Husband)
- The applicant conspired with co-accused Dilip Jaiswal, who practiced black magic, to murder the complainant.
- Panchanama, seizure of lemon with nail and red powder, clothes, and mobile handset corroborated the allegations.
- Chats between the applicant and co-accused showed conspiracy.
Analysis of the Law
- Section 3 of the Black Magic Act prohibits practices causing panic, invoking ghosts, or threatening harm through black magic. The Court observed that to attract this provision, there must be actual creation of panic, prevention of medical treatment, or threats of death/pain.
- Here, the FIR only mentioned discovery of flour statues and lemons with inscriptions. No role of the applicant was shown. No threats or actual harm were attributed to her.
- IPC Charges:
- Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) – No material suggested intent or attempt to kill.
- Section 452 (House Trespass) – Applicant being wife of complainant, no allegation of trespass existed.
- Sections 511 & 120B – Conspiracy not established; only vague allegations and WhatsApp chats existed.
- Citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Court held that continuation of proceedings where allegations are vague and unspecific is abuse of process.
- The Court also relied on Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2025) 3 SCC 756: “If a person is made to face trial on sweeping allegations without specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of process.”
Precedent Analysis
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) – Laid down categories for quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
- Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2025) 3 SCC 756 – Criminal trials cannot be based on vague, sweeping allegations.
Court’s Reasoning
- The FIR was based largely on suspicion and conjecture without specific incriminating material.
- The flour statues, lemons, and chats could not establish a nexus with the applicant’s alleged intent to kill.
- “There is nothing incriminating in the statements recorded or the seized material to prima facie show conspiracy.”
- The situation squarely fell within contingencies enumerated in Bhajan Lal.
- Continuing proceedings would amount to harassment and misuse of criminal process.
Conclusion
The Court quashed FIR No.154/2019 and charge-sheet No.72/2019 against the applicant under IPC Sections 307, 452, 511, 120B and Section 3 of the Black Magic Act, 2013. The Court held: “The FIR is filed only on suspicion. The allegations apart from being vague and omnibus in nature are not supported by corroborative material.”
Implications
- Criminal law cannot be invoked on suspicion, vague allegations, or uncorroborated circumstances.
- Black Magic Act provisions, being penal and carrying social stigma, must be invoked cautiously with clear evidence.
- Reiterates the Bhajan Lal principle protecting individuals from malicious and abusive prosecutions.
