Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J.
Noushad @ Mallikettu – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor and ors. – Respondents
CRL.MC No. 2895 of 2025
Decided On : 29-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Manu Ramachandran, M.Kiranlal, T.S.Sarath, R.Rajesh (Varkala), Sameer M Nair, Sailakshmi Menon, Aashi K. Shajan, Minza Fathima Salim M., Binitha Maria Thomas, Kezil Thottukadavil Cherian
For the Respondent: M.C. Ashi, PP
Continuing a trial against an accused is an abuse of process when the prosecution fails to prove its case against co-accused, warranting quashing of proceedings.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 201 - Quashing of proceedings - The petitioner, accused No.1, sought to quash the final report in a murder case where the trial court acquitted co-accused due to lack of evidence against them - The court found that continuing the trial against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law as the prosecution failed to prove the case against him. (Paras 2, 3, 8, 10, 14)
(B) Inherent powers - The court invoked inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings against the petitioner based on the trial court's findings. (Paras 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of murder and destruction of evidence but did not participate in the trial. The trial court acquitted co-accused due to insufficient evidence against them.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found no evidence to support the prosecution's case against the petitioner, leading to the conclusion that the substratum of the case was lost.
Issues: Whether the trial against the petitioner should continue despite the acquittal of co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that if the prosecution fails to prove its case against co-accused, it would be an abuse of process to continue the trial against the petitioner.
Result: Crl.M.C. allowed; all further proceedings against the petitioner quashed.
ORDER :
Easwaran S., J.
This Crl.M.C. is filed seeking to quash Annuexure A1 final report in Crime No.281 of 2002 of the Konni Police Station which is now pending as C.P. No.81 of 2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Crl.M.C. are as follows:
The petitioner herein is accused No.1 in Crime No.281 of 2002 of the Konni Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1, along with other accused and CW1, committed the murder of one Podimon due to the enmity of the petitioner against the deceased. According to the allegations, accused Nos.1 and 2 along with CW1 dragged the deceased from his shed towards the forest where he was killed by strangulation by tightening a towel around his neck and thereafter dumped the dead body into a rock pit after amputing his legs below the knee and filled the pit with earth and stones.
3. The petitioner did not participate in the trial. Accused Nos.2 to 5 faced the trial in S.C. No.489 of 2007 before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc), Fast Track Court-III, Pathanamthitta. At the conclusion of the trial, the Additional Sessions Court found that the prosecution was not successful in proving either accused No.1 or accused No.2 and CW1 had abducted the deceased from his house and murdered him. Therefore, after analysing the evidence, the Additional Sessions Court found that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving either accused No.1 or accused No.2 or CW1 had abducted the deceased and murdered him in their presence. There was a further finding that there is no evidence that the accused Nos.1 to 5 destroyed the evidence in the case by burning the bath towel used to strangulate the deceased and also by throwing away the chopper used for amputing the legs of the corpse of the deceased. In conclusion, the Additional Sessions Court acquitted accused Nos.2 to 5 and set them at liberty forthwith. However, since the accused No.1/the petitioner herein did not participate in the trial, the case against him was kept pending for trial. In view of the finding recorded by the Additional Sessions Court wherein accused Nos.2 to 5 were acquitted, the 1st accused has approached this Court with the present Crl.M.C. seeking to quash the Final Report against him.
4. Heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M.C. Ashi, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
5. Sri. Manu Ramanchandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, pointed out by referring to the specific finding in paragraph 34 of Annexure A2 judgment and asserted that inasmuch as, the trial court having entered a final finding to the effect that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the petitioner/first accused, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the trial against him. On the contrary, if the trial against the petitioner is continued, the same will be abuse of process of law in as much as the State has not challenged the findings in Annexure A2 judgment to the effect that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused No.1 who is the petitioner herein.
6. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 11.4.2025, this Court directed the Public Prosecutor to ascertain as to whether the State has preferred any appeal against Anneuxre A2 judgment. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the State has not preferred any appeal against Annexure A2 judgment.
7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar.
8. On a perusal of Annexure A2 judgment, it is seen that the trial court has entered into a categorical finding after analysing the prosecution case and the evidence produced before it. It is pertinent to mention that the p
