The Bombay High Court has upheld a Trial Court’s decision discharging Gujarat-based spiritual leader Shivkrupanand Swamiji, ruling that there was no prima facie evidence to justify a trial under the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil, and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013.
Justice R.N. Ladha, while dismissing a writ petition filed by the complainant and the State, observed:
“It is a settled position in law that, under Section 239 CrPC, if a Magistrate finds prima facie evidence against the Accused, he must frame charges as per Section 240 CrPC. Conversely, if the Magistrate determines that the evidence does not support a prima facie case and the charges lack substance and are groundless, he must discharge the Accused.”
The Court found no procedural irregularity, illegality, or error in the orders passed by the lower courts.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The complainant, represented by Advocate Arjun Kadam, alleged that the Accused falsely claimed supernatural powers and deceived followers through spiritual workshops.
In 2011, the complainant became acquainted with the Swamiji’s teachings.
He attended a one-day workshop in 2012, where the Swamiji allegedly made divine claims.
In 2013, an eight-day workshop in Pune featured teachings via pre-recorded CDs, which were sold for ₹250 and purported to hold miraculous powers.
The complainant was advised to chant a mantra daily, which he claimed caused him mental and physical distress.
The FIR also alleged the promotion of inhuman, aghori practices, and black magic.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The Accused applied for discharge under Section 239 CrPC, and the Trial Court allowed the application, holding that there was insufficient material to proceed.
A Criminal Revision Application was filed before the Sessions Court, which upheld the discharge order. The complainant and the State then approached the High Court.
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
FOR THE PETITIONER
- The prosecution claimed that the CD sold during the workshop was evidence of black magic practices.
- It was alleged that the Accused misled the public by claiming divine powers.
- The Petitioner argued that the offense continued beyond 2013, making the Black Magic Act applicable.
FOR THE ACCUSED:
- Represented by Advocates Siddharth Sutaria, Abhijit Aher, and Suyash Khose, the defense argued that:
- The Petitioner never personally met the Accused.
- Attendance at the workshop was voluntary.
- Activities conducted were protected under Section 12 of the Black Magic Act, which exempts religious and spiritual practices.
COURT’S OBSERVATIONS
The High Court examined the scope of Section 239 CrPC, emphasizing that an Accused can only be put on trial if the material discloses sufficient grounds.
“The mere existence of allegations, without substantive evidence to corroborate the same, cannot justify putting a person on trial,” the Court remarked.
It noted that:
The Black Magic Act came into force in 2013, while most alleged events occurred before its enactment.
There was no sufficient material to justify the framing of charges.
The Revisional Court had rightly concluded that the case was outside the scope of the Black Magic Act.
VERDICT
The High Court concluded that both the Trial and Revisional Courts had rightly discharged the Accused, and there was no ground for interference.
“Both Courts below conducted a detailed assessment of the allegations and, based on the material available on record, rightly concluded that the Accused should be discharged. Furthermore, there is no discernible legal error, procedural irregularity, or erroneous finding in the impugned orders that would necessitate intervention by this Court,” Justice Ladha held.
CASE TITLE: ROHAN VISHWAS KULKARNI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
NEUTRAL CITATION: 2025:BHC-AS:15152
LEGAL REPRESENTATION:
PETITIONER: Additional Public Prosecutor Arfan Sait, Advocate Arjun Kadam
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED: Advocates Siddharth Sutaria, Abhijit Aher, Suyash Khose
