The acquittal of co-accused can lead to quashing of charges if it affects the substratum of the prosecution case.

O R D E R

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”

for the sake of brevity).

2. This Crl.M.C case is filed to quash the proceedings in L.P No. 47 of 2022 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna arising from Crime No. 455/2016 of the Perinthalmanna Police Station. Above case is chargesheted against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 364-A, 506 (ii) and 120 (B) read with section 149 of the IPC. The petitioner was not able to appear before the Trial Court, and his case was splited and now pending in the long pending case. The other accused appeared before the trial and as per Annexure VIII they were acquitted. It submitted that, in the light of Annexure VIII judgment, the prosecution against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of Court.

3. Public prosecutor after getting instructions submitted that there is no criminal antecedents for the petitioner.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused were already acquitted by the trial court and the continuation of the trial against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of court because the substratum of the prosecution case is shattered. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has to face trial before the lower court and this court may not invoke the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

5. This Court inMoosa v. Sub Inspector of Police ( 2006 (1) KLT 552 ), Abbas T.K. v. State of Kerala ( 2013 KHC 336 ) and in Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala ( 2011(2) KHC 812 ) considered the powers of this court to invoke Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings based on the acquittal of co- accused. The dictum laid down by this court in the above judgment is that, if substratum of prosecution case is shattered by the judgment of acquittal of the co-accused that could be taken into account while considering the request to quash the proceedings. After going through the judgment of the trial court, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of court. It will be beneficial to extract the relevant portion of the judgment by which the co-accused is acquitted:

13. On the appreciation of the evidence, it is seen that none of the prosecution witnesses support the case of the prosecution. Defacto complainant and PW2 also has no case against the accused . None of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution even though the learned public prosecutor put questions as if in a cross examination. In short there is no evidence in support of the prosecution case. The evidence of PW5 do not bring out any evidence connecting the accused with the alleged offence. So the accused 2 to 13 are entitled to get an Order of acquittal and acquitted under section 232 of the Cr.P.C. Since A1 is not appeared in lower court, case against A1 is not committed. Case against A4 is abated. The above points are found against the prosecution.

5. From the above, it is clear that the substratum of the prosecution case is shattered by the judgment delivered by the lower court, while acquitting the co-accused. Therefore, this court is of the view that the continuation of the prosecution will be an abuse of process of court and it will be a judicial waste of time. Therefore, this Crl.M.C can be allowed.

Hence this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in L.P No. 47 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna arising from Crime No. 455/2016 of the Perinthalmanna Police Station are quashed.