Quashing proceedings under Section 482 is justified when an acquittal of co-accused undermines the prosecution's case.

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).

2. Petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime No.2429/2011 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur which is now pending as C.C.No.123/2020 on the file of the Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur.

3. It is submitted that the co-accused were already acquitted as per Annexure C judgment. It is submitted that, in the light of the same, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of court.

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 Annexure C judgment by which the co-accused is acquitted:

“5. On the side of the prosecution the de facto complainant was examined as PW1 and marked documentary evidence Ext. P1 and P2. He along with the accused filed a petition for compounding the offences with a petition for permission. His statement was also recorded therein. Others were given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. As there is no incriminating circumstances appeared against the accused in the prosecution evidence their examination U/s 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. was dispensed with. They did not adduce any evidence.

8. Points.3 to 7:-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and available evidence of record these points can be considered together. The sole witness examined, PW1 is the defacto complainant and he proved Ext.P1 complaint. The Sub Inspector of police, Thrissur Town East Police Station registered the above crime on the basis of the said complaint and on investigation filed charge sheet against the accused alleging commission of the aforesaid offences. However, PW1 has turned hostile to the prosecution. In the evidence he has stated that he had invested Rs.1,30,000/- in TIK Innovators Marketing Limited Company for getting products and that he obtained products for the said amount. He has stated that there is no amount due to her in the said transaction.

9. With the permission of the Court, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has invoked the power under proviso to sec.162 Cr.P.C. and Sec.154 of the Evidence Act. Though PW1 was invited with the previous statements in Ext.P1 complaint and also recorded by the investigating officer, he denied all those statements and there is nothing brought ought from his evidence to incriminate the accused in the commission of the offences. Ext.P2 is a portion of his statement recorded U/s.162 CrPC. It is said that Ext.P1 complaint was filed in a mistaken notion. He further stated that the matter has been settled and he has no further grievance against the accused. He denied the suggestion that he is falsely giving evidence only to support the accused. Cons