The inherent powers to quash proceedings can be exercised when the fundamental substratum of the case is lost due to the acquittal of co-accused.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 6747 OF 2025 CRIME NO.2879/2015 OF Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN LPR NO.93 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

ABHEESH AGED 39 YEARS S/O HAMEED, VALLATHUMPADY, CHAPPARA DESOM, PULLUT VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680663 BY ADVS.

SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SHRI.ABRAHAM J. KANIYAMPADY SHRI.SANGEETH MOHAN SMT.V.P.REJITHA SHRI.BAPPU GALIB SALAM SMT.ANINDITA NANDAKUMAR RESPONDEN T S/STAT E :

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680669 PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

24.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS,J --------------------------------------------

CRL.MC NO. 6747 OF 2025 ---------------------------------------------

Dated this the 24th day of February, 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the original 3^rd accused in Crime No.2879/2015 registered by the Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, (‘ IPC ’, in short).

2. The case against the petitioner was split up and the trial as against the accused Nos.1 and 2 was conducted by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur, (Trial Court) in C.C.No.345/2016. Subsequently, the case against the petitioner was split up and numbered as LPR No.93/2023. Currently the case against the petitioner is numbered as C.C.No.589/2022.

3. The prosecution case, in essence, is that, on

16.01.2015, at around 22.00 hours, while PW1 and his police party were on law and order duty, the accused Nos.1 to 3, in furtherance of their common intention, had a scuffle with the temple committee members, disobeyed the orders of the PW1 and his party, and obstructed them from discharging their official duties. The 1st accused had caught hold the collar of the shirt of PW1, the 2^nd accused forcefully moved away the hands of CW3, the 3^rd accused moved away the hands of PW2 and the 1^st accused pushed down CW4. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. The petitioner has stated in the criminal miscellaneous case that, although he was enlarged on bail at the crime stage, he did not participate in the trial. The case against him was split up and the trial as against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 was conducted by the Trial Court. However, on finding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Nos.1 and 2 had committed the above offences, by Annexure 3 judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the accused Nos. 1 and 2. By Annexure 3 judgment, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, its not going to lead to a conviction. Hence, the entire proceedings as against the petitioner may be quashed.

5. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not participate in the trial. The Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the accused Nos.1 and 2, and by Annexure 3, judgment, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted.

7. I have carefully analysed the allegations in Annexure 1 FIR, Annexure 2 Final Report and the findings in Annexure 3 judgment.

8. In Annexure 3 judgment, the Trial Court has specifically fo