The court emphasized that acquittal of co-accused can lead to quashing of proceedings against other accused if the substratum of the case is lost.

O R D E R Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the sixth accused in Crime No. 401/2007 registered by the Chadayamangalam Police Station, Kollam, against 14 accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148 and 353 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act , 1984. Now, the case is pending as C.C. No. 731/2024 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kadakkal, Kollam, (‘Trial Court’, in short).

2. The prosecution allegation, in brief, is that; on 22.11.2007 at around 20:15 hours, the accused 1 to 14, due to common animosity towards CW2, had caused hurt to CW2 and CWs 1, 6 and 8 (police officers), who reached the place to rescue CW2. The accused persons had also vandalised the police jeep and caused a loss of Rs. 1,875/- to the Government. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, he was unaware of the pendency of the crime. Consequently, the case against him was split up and the Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the accused 1,3, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 12. By the judgment dated 05.11.2012 in C.C.No.778/2008, the Trial Court on finding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the above accused persons had committed the above offences, had honourably acquitted the said accused persons. Subsequently, by Annexure 2 judgment, the Trial Court acquitted accused 7, 11 and 14 in the crime. In view of the said judgments, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Taking note of Annexure 2 judgment, this Court, by Annexure 3 order, quashed the proceedings as against the 4^th accused also. In light of Annexure 2 judgment and Annexure 3 order, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the trial as against the petitioner. Therefore, the entire proceedings as against the petitioner may be quashed.

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

5. Crime No. 401/2007 was registered against 14 accused persons for allegedly committing the offences mentioned above. The police, after investigation, filed the charge sheet before the Trial Court.

6. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not appear at the trial stage. The case against him was split up and the trial as against the accused was conducted, as mentioned above. In Annexure 2 judgment, the Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused Nos.7, 11 and 14 had allegedly assembled with the common purpose to cause hurt to CW2. As the common purpose was not proved, the offence under Section 147 of the IPC was found to be not attracted. Likewise, the Trial Court also found that, since no dangerous weapons were produced at the time of trial, the offence under Sections 148 and 149 of the were also not attracted. Accordingly, the Trial Court, by Annexure 2 judgment, acquitted the above accused persons in the case. On the basis of the said judgment, this Court quashed the proceedings as against the 4^th accused as per Annexure 3 order.

7. InMoosa 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. In light of Annexure 2 judgment and Annexure

3 order, I am satisfied that the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it will not