Acquittal of co-accused may lead to quashing of proceedings against other accused where prosecution's substratum is lost.

O R D E R

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the original 2^nd accused in Crime No.105/2008 registered by the Parippally Police Station, Kollam, against three accused persons, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 465 , 471, 279, 337, 338 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 39 read with Section 192 and 146 read with Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act . The case against the petitioner was split up and the trial as against the accused 1 and 3 was conducted by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, South Paravur (‘Trial Court’, in short) as C.C.No.456/2008 and, by Annexure A3 judgment, the said accused persons were acquitted. Subsequently, the case against the petitioner is re-

numbered as C.C.No.291/2019.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that;

The 1^st accused had purchased a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.MH 31 AY 6415 from PW5 and altered the number of the vehicle by placing a forged number plate which exhibited the number of the vehicle as KL 2M 213. Subsequently, he sold the vehicle to the 2^nd accused, who bought it with the knowledge that the registration was forged. Subsequently, on 09.03.2008 the vehicle got involved in an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3^rd accused with the 2^nd accused as the pillion rider. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. The petitioner has filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case on the assertion that, the accused 1 and 3 have already been acquitted by the Trial Court as per Annexure A3 judgment. Although the petitioner has got himself enlarged on bail at the crime stage, subsequently, he did not receive any summons from the Trial Court. By Annexure A3 judgment, the Trial Court on finding that PW1 had turned hostile to the prosecution, the 3^rd accused was not guilty for the offences under Sections 279 , 337 and 338 of the IPC . Likewise, in the cross examination of PW5, it was found that the registration book of the vehicle and all the other relevant documents were still in the name of PW5 and that no sale letter or transfer form was produced before the Regional Transport Authority. Likewise, PW5 admitted that he has not come across any document connecting the 1^st accused with the forgery. Accordingly, the Trial Court found that there was no evidence to connect the 1^st accused for the alleged acts of forgery and consequently came into a conclusion that the accused have not committed the above offences under Sections 465 and 471 of . In light of the above findings in Annexure A3 judgment, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands 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 Public Prosecutor.

5. The gist of the prosecution case against the petitioner is that, the 1^st accused had changed the number plate of the vehicle and given the vehicle to the 2^nd accused (petitioner), who with full knowledge used the vehicle and while it was in his custody, the vehicle driven by the 3^rd accused met with an accident with the petitioner on the pillion.

6. In Annexure A3 judgment, the Trial Court found that the 3^rd accused did not ride the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Likewise, the Trial Court also found that the 1^st accused has not committed the offences under Section 465 and 471 of IPC . The only allegation against the petitioner is that he purchased the vehicle from the 1^st accused with the knowledge that it was having a forged number plate. In view of the acquittal of the 1^st accused