Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 22742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
PRAVEEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 2148 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.KABIL CHANDRAN, SMT.R.ANJALI, SMT.ANJANA ARUN, SHRI.ASWIN K. BENZEER, SMT.NANDANA M SURESH
For the Respondents: SR.PP.SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
Acquittal of co-accused can lead to quashing of proceedings if the substratum of the case is lost.
Headnote:The petitioner, the 3rd accused in a criminal case pertaining to sections 323 and 324 IPC, contends that the substratum of the prosecution case is lost due to the acquittal of co-accused, warranting quashing of proceedings. The court relied on precedents, notably Moosa V. Sub Inspector of Police, affirming that when key witness testimonies fail, judicial time is preserved by not proceeding with the trial. Ultimately, the High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings against the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and parties involved (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for quashing based on previous acquittal and lost substratum (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on evidence and prior decisions (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. final ruling to quash fir based on legal arguments (Para 10) |
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.2148 OF 2026 -----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the original 3rd accused in Crime No.98/2012 registered by the Binanipuram Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code .
2. The case against the petitioner was split up and the trial as against the accused 1, 2, 4 and 6 was conducted by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva (‘Trial Court’) and they were acquitted by Annexure-A10 judgment. The case against the petitioner has been re-
numbered as CC No.1345/2019.
3. The petitioner has stated in the Crl.M.C. that, in view of Annexure-A10 judgment passed against the co- accused, 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, it would be a sheer waste of judicial time to conduct the trial all over again. Therefore, the proceedings may be quashed.
4. The substratum of the prosecution case is that, on
04.02.2012, at around 16:45 hours, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had wrongfully restrained CWs 1 to 7, and the 1st accused slapped CW2, accused 1 and 2 hit CWs 1,3 and 4 with an iron pipe and spatula and all the other accused fisted and kicked CWs 1 to 7, and caused hurt to them. Thus, they have committed the above offences.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner had not participated in the trial. The case against the accused 1, 2, 4 and 6 was conducted by the Trial Court. The 5th accused is reported to be no more. By Annexure -A10 judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused who faced the trial.
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 Supreme Court and this Court in a plethora of precedents on the above question of law.
8. I have carefully analysed the allegations in Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure-A2 Final Report and the findings in Annexure-A10 judgment.
9. In Annexure A10 judgment, it is seen that, although PWs 1 to 9 were examined, all of them had testified that they did not identify the assailants. Consequently, the Trial Court found that the witnesses had turned hostile to the prosecution. Thus, on finding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused persons have committed the above offences beyond any reasonable doubt, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused who faced the trial.
10. On a consideration of the findings in Annexure A10 judgment, I am convinced and satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS because the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. It would be a sheer waste of time to conduct the trial against the petitioner in view of Annexure-A10 judgment.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C.
by quashing Annexure A1 FIR, Annexuren-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in CC No.1345/2019 of the Trial Court as against the petitioner.
sd/-
