Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7174
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SUBAIR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 6098 2023
K.B.ARUNKUMAR, POOJA K.S.
Acquittal of co-accused can justify quashing proceedings against remaining accused if it undermines the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
Abuse - Criminal Prosecution - Indian Penal Code Sections List - This judgment clarifies that if the substratum of the prosecution case is shattered due to the acquittal of co-accused, continuation of proceedings against other accused may constitute an abuse of process of court.
Fact of the Case:
The cases concern two petitioners accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. They argued that their co-accused were acquitted, thus maintaining that the ongoing prosecution against them was an abuse of process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the substratum of the prosecution case was indeed shattered by the co-accused's acquittal, leading to the conclusion that continuing the prosecution against the petitioners would result in judicial waste.
Issues: Whether the continuation of prosecution against the petitioners is an abuse of process given the acquittal of co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an acquittal of co-accused can lead to quashing the proceedings against other accused when the fundamental basis for the prosecution is undermined.
Final Decision: The court quashed all further proceedings against both petitioners.
COMMON ORDER
These These Crl.M.Cs are connected and therefore, I am disposing of the Crl.M.Cs by a common order.
2. The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.8678/2023 is the accused in S.C.No.741/2023 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Court-III, Manjeri and the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.6098/2023 is the accused in S.C.No.193/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri. Both cases are arising from Crime No.180/2004 of Perumpadappu Police Station, Malappuram. The above cases are chargesheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 308, 332 435, 427 and 153A r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code .
3. It is submitted that the co-accused were already acquitted as per Annexure-2 judgment. It is submitted that in the light of Annexure-2 judgment, the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners will be an abuse of process of court.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.
5. 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 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.
6. 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 the judgment by which the co-accused is acquitted:
10. From the evidence of PW1 and 2 it is crystal clear they have no pervious acquaintance with the accused person and have not disclosed the name of those persons involved in the incident before the investigating officer or in Ext. P1 F1 statement. On going through Ext. P1 it could be seen that none of the names of the assailants were given by him. He had not stated that the first accused had pressed his neck with sword and that A5 beaten with wooden plank from behind him and as the same was prevented by him, he had not sustained any injuries. Besides the name of the persons who had pelted stones would not find a place in Ext.P1 statement. Even though in chief examination PW1 stated that he can identify the accused persons who was standing in the dock, he categorically admitted in cross examination that he had no previous acquaintance with the accused person and has seen them at first time after the incident as the investigating officer has not got identified them at any point of time during investigation. Thus the evidence of PW1 and 2 would clearly depict the fact that there is no proper identity with regard to the accused persons who were actually involved in this case though they arrayed as accused person in this case.'
7. 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 these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are allowed as follows:
Crl.M.C.8678/2023 All further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.N
