The inherent power of the court can quash proceedings when the substratum of the case is lost due to the discharge of a co-accused.

O R D E R

Dated this the 04^th day of March, 2026 The petitioners are the accused 2 and 3 in C.C.No.101/2016 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kasaragod, (‘Trial Court’, in short) which has originated from Crime No.121/2013 registered by the Manjeswaram Police Station.

2. The petitioners have filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash Annexure A1 Final Report and all further proceedings in the above case on the assertion that, by Annexure A2 order, this Court has discharged the 1^st accused on the finding that the offences alleged against the 1^st accused will not be attracted. In view of Annexure A2 order passed by this Court the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, the proceedings as against the petitioners may be quashed.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:

On 02.02.2013, while the de facto complainant was on the way to Mangalapuram Airport to board flight to the Gulf Country where has been working, the 1^st accused along with 15 other hooligans chased the taxi car in which the defacto complainant was travelling, waylaid him at Manjeshwaram and forcibly took him to a room at Kasaragod, instilling fear of death by brandishing a knife. Thereafter, the defacto complainant was kept under detention in that room and subjected to criminal intimidation demanding an amount of Rupees one Crore as ransom. The defacto complainant was later released upon payment of Rs.50,00,000/- which was mobilised by his relatives who went to the accused and also executed a document undertaking to make payment of the balance amount. Thus, the petitioner along with the other accused, are said to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 341 , 363 and 506(ii) r/w Section 34 I.P.C.

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

5. The petitioners have stated in the Crl.M.C that, during the pendency of the above case, the 1^st accused filed an application for discharge. However, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. Challenging the dismissal order, the 1^st accused filed Crl.R.P.No.09/2017 before this Court. By Annexure A2 order this Court found that none of the offences alleged against the 1^st accused are attracted. Consequently, this Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and discharged the 1^st accused. In light of Annexure A2 order, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioners undergo the trial it is not going to lead to a conviction. Hence, the entire proceedings as against the petitioners may be quashed.

6. The above crime was registered against the petitioners and the 1^st accused on the allegation that they had intimidated the 2^nd respondent (defacto complainant) by demanding a ransom. Subsequently, on receiving Rs.50,00,000/- and after executing a document to pay the balance amount, the accused released the 2^nd respondent. Although the 1^st accused filed an application for discharge, the same was dismissed by the Trial Court. In revision, this Court, after meticulously going through the allegations in the Final Report and the statements of the witnesses, by Annexure A2 order, found that none of the offences namely Sections 341 , 363, and 506(ii) are attracted as against the 1^st accused. Accordingly, this Court set aside the dismissal order of the Trial Court and allowed the revision petition by discharging the 1^st accused.

7. 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 S