The acquittal of co-accused can lead to quashing proceedings against remaining accused under inherent powers if the substratum of the prosecution case is lost.

O R D E R Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner is the 6^th accused in Crime No.828/2006 registered by the Nedumangad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, as against six accused persons, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 145, 341, 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and 38 r/w Section 52 of the Kerala Police Act . The Investigating Officer had filed Annexure II final report and case was numbered as C.C. No.240/2007 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Nedumangad (Trial Court).

2. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that;

On 17.10.2006, while the witnesses Nos.1 to 5 were engaged in the official duty of assisting the mobile court, and when attempted to intercept the tempo traveller bearing registration No. KL-01-X 3281, driven by the 1^st accused, he refused to stop the vehicle. Instead, the other accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, wrongfully restrained the witnesses, pushed them to the ground and caused hurt to them. Thus, the accused persons deterred the witnesses, who are the public servants, from discharging their official duties.

3. The petitioner has stated in the Crl.M.C that, although he got himself enlarged on bail at the crime stage, thereafter, he did not receive any summons from the Trial Court. Later, the petitioner learnt that, the case against him was split up and the trial as against the accused 1 to 4 was conducted. During the pendency of the Trial, the 5th accused died and case against him got abated. As the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the above accused persons had committed the above offences, by Annexure-III judgment, the Trial Court acquitted accused 1 to 4. In view of Annexure-III judgment, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Hence, even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it would not yield a conviction. Hence, the benefit of Annexure-III judgment may be given to the petitioner.

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

5. Crime No.828/2006 was registered by the Nedumangad Police Station as against six accused persons for allegedly committing the above mentioned offences. In the charge sheet that was filed by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner was ranked as accused No.6. Indisputably, the petitioner did not participate in the trial.

6. On going through the findings in Annexure-III judgment, I find that the Trial Court has acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the reason that there were no independent eye witnesses. Moreover, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the said accused persons had assaulted and caused injury to the witnesses. Likewise, the Trial Court also found that the oral testimony of PW5 was not inspiring. Consequently, the Trial Court acquitted the accused 1 to 4.

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. I have carefully analysed the allegation in Annexure -I FIR, Annexure-II final report and the findings in Annexure-III judgment. A reading of Annexure-III judgment substantiates that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons, who withstood the trial, had committed the above offences.

9. In light of the findings in Annexure-III judgment, I am satisf