The acquittal of co-accused can serve as a basis to quash proceedings under Section 482 if it 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. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.5/2015 of Tirurangadi Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 427, 294(b), 427, 506(i) r/w Section 149 of the IPC.

3. The said crime was registered based on the complaint given by the 3rd respondent. Annexure A1 is the First Information Report and Annexure A2 is the Final Report. The case was registered as C.C. No.225/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Parappanangadi. During the pendency of the said case, the disputes were settled by the parties, is the submission. Based on the settlement, the learned Magistrate acquitted accused Nos. 3 to 5 as per Annexure A3 judgment. The case against the petitioners herein were split up and is now pending as C.C. No.626/2022. In view of the settlement and also in the light of the acquittal of the co-accused, this Crl.M.C. is filed.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the co-accused were already acquitted by the trial court and the continuation of the trial against the petitioners will be an abuse of process of court because the substratum of the prosecution case is shattered. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have 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 judgement 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 petitioners will be an abuse of process of court. It will be beneficial to extract the relevant portion of Annexure A3 judgment by which the co-accused were acquitted:

“7]. Defacto complainant is examined as PW1. According to him on the alleged day a group of persons attacked him, PW2 and PW1 and they got injured. He gave first information statement to police in respect of the alleged incident. First information statement is marked as Ext.P1. In Court he denied the facts stated in the complaint and deposed that the assailants were not known to him. He further stated that matter settled out of Court. Thus PW1 turned hostile to prosecution case.

8]. PW2 is the injured in this case. He deposed in tune with PW1. He further deposed that matter settled out of Court. Hence he turned hostile to prosecution case. PW3 is the occurrence witnesses. He also did not support the prosecution case. Hence he turned hostile to prosecution case.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was given ample opportunity to put questions that could be asked in cross-examination. But he could not bring anything to prove the incident. Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence points No. 1 to 7 are answered against the prosecution.

POINT No.8 In the light of discussion on points No.1 to 7, A3 to A5 found not guilty of alleged offences, hence point No. 11 found against prosecution. In the result, accused No. 3 to 5 are found not guilty of offences punishable u/s 143,147,341,323,294(b), 427, 506(i) r/w 149 IPC. A1 to A5 acquitted under section 255[1] CrPC. Their bail bonds stands cancelled and they are set at liberty. Case against A1 and A2 split up and refiled as