Acquittal of co-accused undermines prosecution case against the petitioner leading to quashing of proceedings.

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No.466 of 2026 --------------------------------------------

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the 5^th accused in Crime No.977/2016 registered by the Kasaragod Police Station alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120 (b), 420, 465, 468, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 (D) of the Information Technology Act .

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that:

The accused 1 to 7 had hatched a conspiracy to hack bank accounts and withdraw amounts illegally from different accounts by using forged credit cards. Accordingly, they assembled at the parking area of City Gold, Kasaragod with mobile phones, laptops, swiping machine and forged credit and debit cards, and the 7^th accused made an attempt to withdraw amounts illegally from the ATM of the Axis Bank at Cherkala on another day. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, although he had got himself enlarged on bail at the crime stage, he did not receive any summons from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod (‘Trial Court’, for brevity). Consequently, the case against him was split up and the Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the accused 1 to 4 as CC No.224/2018. However, by Annexure A3 judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the accused 1 to 4, as the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the above accused had committed the above offecnes. In view of Annexure-A3 judgment, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. The petitioner is at par with the accused 1 to 4. Even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it is not going to yield a different result than Annexure A3 judgment. Hence, all further proceedings against the petitioner may also be quashed.

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

5. Crime No.977/2016 was registered against seven accused persons, who have allegedly committed the above offences.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner did not participate in the trial. The Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the accused 1 to 4 and by Annexure A3 judgment, they were acquitted. Subsequently, the petitioner had appeared before the Trial Court and got himself enlarged on bail and the case against him has been re-numbered as CC No.72/2025.

7. I have carefully analysed the allegations in Annexure A1 FIR, A2 final report and the findings in Annexure A3 judgment.

8. A reading of Annexure A3 judgment substantiates that the sterling witnesses of the prosecution had turned hostile. Consequently, there was no material to substantiate that the accused 1 to 4 had committed the above offences. Accordingly, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused 1 to 4.

9. In light of the findings in Annexure A3 judgment, I am convinced that the substratum of prosecution case has been lost. The findings in the said judgment are squarely applicable to the petitioner also. Even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it is not going to yield a different result. Thus, I am satisfied that the findings in Annexure A3 judgment would enure to the benefit of the petitioner also. It would be a sheer waste of judicial time to conduct the trial of the petitioner all over again. Thus, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS and quash the proceedings against the petitioner also.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and consequently, Annexures A1 FIR, A2 final report and all further proceedings in CC No.72/2025 of the Trial Court as against the petitioner are hereby quashe