The court ruled that allegations lacking prima facie evidence constitute an abuse of process, warranting the quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet.

RESERVED ON : 25.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 30.09.2025 JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)

Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties.

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code , seeking quashing of the First Information Report bearing No.154/2019, dated 01.06.2019 registered with Mankapur Police Station, Nagpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 07 , 452, 511 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhumane, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act , 2013. The application also prays for quashing of the charge-sheet bearing No.72/2019, filed by the investigating agency in pursuance to the said First Information Report.

3. As per the said First Information Report, the non-applicant No.2 who happens to be the husband of the present applicant lodged a report that on 16.05.2019 at about 6.30 p.m. he found some small statues made of flour in his compound. It is further alleged that on 26.05.2019, at about 6.30 p.m. he found one lemon inside his compound wall in which he was written ‘pushpa mrutyu’ and their was a nail pricked in it. Thereafter, on 30.05.2019 again lemon was discovered with a nail pricked in it and written there on as “Pushpa Shama Mrutyu”. There was a red coloured powder stuck on it. It is further stated in the First Information Report that on 31.05.2019, an unknown person was roaming around the residence of the applicant in doubtful manner. When he was accosted, he told his name as Dilip Chandanlal Jaiswal and when his belongings were checked it was found that their were lengthy chats in his mobile phone between him and the applicant. It was therfore stated that said Dilip Jaiswal along with the applicant had hatched a plan for committing murder of the complainant. On these set of allegations, First Information Report mentioned supra was filed. On completion of the investigation, the investigating agency filed charge-sheet. The said First Information Report and the consequent charge-sheet is challenged in the present application.

4. We have heard Shri S. Zia Quzi, learned Counsel for the applicant as also learned Additional Public Prosecutor Smt. S.S.

Dhote, for the non-applicant/State alongwith Shri Aniruddha Jaltare, holding for Shri B.H. Tekam, for non-applicant No.2.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that bare perusal of the allegations made in the First Information Report and charge- sheet would reveal that no offence much less as stated in the said First Information Report is made out. He further states that the offences registered against the applicant are a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the applicant against the complainant and his family. It is his submission that since prima facie the offences are not made out, the First Information Report and charge-sheet are liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions made by the Counsel for the applicant and states that the applicant had engaged the services of co-accused who was indulging in Black Magic and had hatched a plan/conspiracy to murder the life of informant and his family members. She further states that during the course of investigation, spot panchanama is conducted and statements of witnesses are recorded. Furthermore, she submits that clothes of the accused, mobile handset and one lemon having nail pierced in it having a red spot over it have been seized.

7. Learned Counsel for non-applicant No.2 also supports the contentions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and states that the material collected by the investigating agency clearly reveals that the applicant had hatched the