A case can be quashed if the acquittal of co-accused results in the loss of the prosecution's foundation against another accused.

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No. 10476 OF 2025 --------------------------------------------

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2025 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in CC No.2306/2014 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kolencherry (‘Trial Court’ for short), which has originated from Crime No.430/2011, registered by the Puthencruze Police Station, Ernakulam, wherein the petitioner was ranked as accused No.3, for allegedly the committing the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 466, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The prosecution allegation, in brief, is that: the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had forged documents of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-39-2434, with the intention to get interim custody of the vehicle from the Trial Court. The vehicle was used to transport river sand without permit or authorisation as envisaged under the law. The act was done with an intention to derive unlawful gain. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. The petitioner states that, even though he was enlarged on bail at the crime stage, subsequently he did not receive any summons from the Trial Court. However, the trial as against the accused 1 and 2 proceeded and, by Annexure-II judgment, the Trial Court honourably acquitted the accused 1 and 2, since the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the said accused had committed the above offences. In view of the passing of the Annexure-II judgment, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the trial, it is not going to yield a different result than Annexure-II judgment. Hence, all further proceedings in CC No.2306/2014 may be quashed.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Crime No. 430/2011 was registered against three accused persons, alleging them to have committed the above offences.

6. Indisputably, the petitioner did not withstand the trial. Although the Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the accused 1 and 2, the Trial Court found that there was no material to prove that the said accused had committed the above offences. Consequently, the Trial Court acquitted the said accused persons by Annexure-II judgment.

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 reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in a plethora of precedents on the above question of law.

8. I have carefully gone through Annexure-I final report and the findings in Annexure-II judgment. In Annexure-II judgment, the Trial Court has held that, although the prosecution had alleged that the 1^st accused had produced false and fabricated documents along with the application for the interim custody of the vehicle, there was no document to link the accused 1 and 2 with the alleged acts of forgery and production of forged documents. Even though PWs 1 to 5 were examined, none of them have deposed the involvement of the accused persons in the above crime or that the documents were prepared, forged and produced by the accused persons. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that other than for a mere statement that the documents were forged and produced there was nothing on record to prove the culpability of the accused in the crime. Consequently, by Annexure-II judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the accused 1 and 2 on the finding that the prosecuti