A court can quash proceedings against accused if the substratum of the case is lost due to the acquittal of co-accused.

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------

Crl.MC No. 9070 OF 2025 -----------------------------------------

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2025

ORDER

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 4 in C.C.

No.80/2025 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, which arises out of Crime No.22/2016 registered by the Pathanamthitta Police Station, as against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 427 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The the prosecution case, in essence, is that, on

02.01.2016, at 20.00 hours, the accused persons, in prosecution of their common intention, had wrongfully restrained CWs 1 to 4 and the 2^nd accused stamped CW1 and accused Nos.3 and 4 attacked CW3 and the 3^rd accused attacked CW3 with a stick and hit him on his head. While CW2 intervened in the matter, the 4^th accused slapped him on his face. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. The petitioners assert that,they got themselves enlarged on bail at the crime stage. Subsequently, they did not receive any summons in the matter. The case against them was split up and the case against accused Nos.2 and 5 was renumbered as C.C. No.51/2020 and they withstood the trial. By Annexure-A3 judgment the Trial Court acquitted the said accused on the specific finding that the prosecution has failed beyond reasonable doubt to substantiate that the said accused persons had committed the above offences. In view of the specific findings in Annexure-A3 judgment that the prosecution has failed prove the involvement of the said accused in the crime, the petitioners are also entitled to benefit of the findings in the said judgment. Now, the petitioners have got themselves enlarged on bail and their case has been renumbered as C.C. No.80/2025. The continuance of proceedings would be a sheer waste of judicial time. Therefore, the Crl.M.C. may be allowed. 4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Crime No.22/2016 was registered against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences mentioned above. The Investigating Officer laid Annexure-

A2 Final Report as against all the accused persons.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did not participate in the trial. However, the trial against accused Nos.2 and 5 proceeded and Annexure-A3 judgment has been passed in their favour on the specific finding that PWs 1 and 2 deposed that, though somebody attacked them, they could not identify the assailants. The prosecution also did not produce any materials to substantiate the involvement of the said accused in the crime. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the said accused in the crime. Therefore, it would be sheer waste of judicial time to continue the proceedings as against the petitioners.

7. In Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1)

KLT 552], a Full Bench of this Court has held that in a case where the very substratum of the case is lost by the acquittal of the co-accused, the inherent power of this Court can be exercised to quash the proceedings against the other accused persons. The same view has been repeatedly reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in a catena of precedents.

8. After having carefully analyzed the materials on record, particularly the findings in Annexure-A3 judgment, wherein the Trial Court has found that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused persons had committed the above offences and there is no material to conclude that the injured were attacked by the accused persons, I am of the definite view that the said