Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15879
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
PREM RAJ @ AMBADI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 10974 OF 2025 | SC NO.1442 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.MANU TOM, SRI.C.PRATHAPACHANDRAN PILLAI, SHRI.BALAMURALI K.P., SHRI.SHAJI T.M., SHRI.RENIL IQUBAL K., SHRI.AMAL C. PETER
For the Respondents: SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S
The court emphasized that acquittal of co-accused does not necessarily entitle an accused to quash proceedings, especially when trial is warranted.
Headnote:The case involves the petitioner accused in S.C.No.1442/2016 arising from Crime No.446/2010 under multiple sections of the IPC. The petitioner sought to quash proceedings claiming co-accused acquitted, affecting the substantive case. The Court declined quashing, asserting trial necessity, citing precedent. The Court directs timely prosecution, ensuring completion within eight months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case origin and accused's stance on quashing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's reasoning against quashing and related precedents. (Para 3) |
| 3. court directives for trial progression and time frame. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.1442/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Thiruvananthapuram, (‘Trial Court’, in short), which has originated from Crime No.446/2010, registered by the Kilimanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120 (b), 341, 302, 201 and 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
2. The petitioner has filed this criminal miscellaneous case to quash the above proceedings on the assertion that the other co-accused in the above crime have been acquitted as per Annexure -2 judgment. Therefore, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Hence, no useful purpose would be served by conducting the trial as against the petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. After carefully analysing the findings in Annexure-
2 judgment, I was not convinced that the petitioner is entitled to get the proceedings quashed, especially in a case of this nature, following the principles laid down by the full Bench of this Court in Moosa V. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT 552] . At that juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner would be satisfied, if this Court directs the Trial Court to consider and dispose of the above case within a time frame.
5. In light of the above submission, this Court had called for a report from the Trial Court to ascertain the status and the reasonable time period required to dispose of the case.
6. Pursuant to the above directions, by communication dated 28.02.2026, the Trial Court has informed this Court that all efforts would be made to dispose of S.C.No.1442/2016 within eight months, especially since there are 151 witnesses to be examined.
On a consideration of the above report and in light of the fact that this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings, I dispose the Crl.M.C., by directing the Trial Court to frame the charge immediately, and dispose of S.C.No.1442/2016, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 8 months from
28.02.2026.
