Acquittal of co-accused can lead to quashing of proceedings if it undermines the prosecution's case against another accused under Section 482.

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 was the 4th accused in CC No.123/2011 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC.

3. Originally the case was numbered as CC No.1/2004 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate court, Thalassery. Accused Nos.3 and 5 were acquitted as per Annexure A1 judgment and the case against the petitioner (4th accused) and accused Nos.1 and 2 was split up and renumbered as CC No.123/2011. Annexure A2 is the FIR and Annexure A3 is the final report in this case. Annexure A4 is the protest complaint. It is submitted that, in the light of the Annexure A1 judgment, 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 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 petitioner will be an abuse of process of court. It will be beneficial to extract the relevant portion of Annexure A1 judgment by which accused Nos.3 and 5 were acquitted:

“24. Point No.5: In view of the discussion made above, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove the offences punishable u/s 403,406 and 420 IPC against the accused No. 3 and 5 and they are acquitted u/s 248(1) of Cr.PC. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are set at liberty forthwith. Case of A1,2, and 4 is split up and refiled as CC 123/11.”

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 alone in C.C.No.123/2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate court, Thalassery arising from Crime No.213/2002 of Chakkarakkal Police Station are quashed.