The inherent power of the court can quash proceedings if the prosecution's case is compromised by the acquittal of co-accused.

O R D E R

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the 6^th accused in Crime No.66/1996 registered by the Vattappara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code . The case against the petitioner was split up and the trial as against the accused 1, 2, 3 and 5 was conducted by the Assistant Sessions Court, Nedumangad (‘Trial Court’, in short) as S.C.No.167/1998. Subsequently, the petitioner got himself enlarged on bail and the case against him is numbered as S.C.No.1215/2012.

2. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that;

On 09.05.1996, the accused 1 to 6, in furtherance of their common intention, to commit dacoity, the accused 1 to 3 caught hold of CW1 and forcefully committed theft of his gold chain, inflicted cut injuries with a sword on his hand and the 4^th accused committed dacoity. The 6^th accused (petitioner) was the driver of the car. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, although he has got himself enlarged on bail at the crime stage, subsequently, he did not receive any summons from the Trial Court. Consequently, the case against him was split up and the trial as against the accused 1, 2, 3 and 5 was conducted by the Trial Court. However, as the prosecution had miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the above accused persons had committed the offences, the said accused persons were acquitted by Annexure A3 judgment. By passing Annexure A3 judgment, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioner undergoes the trial, it is not going to lead to a conviction. Hence, the entire proceedings as against the petitioner may be quashed.

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

5. Indisputably, the petitioner did not participate in the trial. In the trial as against the accused 1,2, 3 and 5, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16, and marked Exts.P1 to P12 and MO1 in evidence. However, all the sterling witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution and testified that they had not seen the accused persons inflicting the injuries. The only piece of evidence that was available to connect the accused to the crime was Ext.P10, which is the extract of the alleged statement of the 1^st accused given to PW16, the Investigating Officer. However, this material was also rejected by the Trial Court on finding that the prosecution had failed beyond reasonable doubt to substantiate that the accused persons had committed the above offence.

6. 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 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.

7. I have carefully analysed Annexure A1 First Information Report, Annexure A2 Final Report, and the findings in Annexure A3 judgment.

8. In view of the findings in Annexure A3 judgment, I find that the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it is not going to lead to a different result than Annexure A3 judgment. It would be a sheer waste of judicial time to conduct the trial all over again for the petitioner. Thus, I am convinced and satisfied that