Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 23649
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
FRANCIS KALATRAN D'CRUZ – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 2427 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR, SHRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL), SMT.NESY A.R., SMT.RAMYA CHEERAN
For the Respondents: SRI.M.P.PRASANTH
Inherent powers to quash proceedings exist if the substratum of the case is lost due to acquittal of co-accused.
Headnote:The petitioner sought quashing of proceedings based on the acquittal of a co-accused, arguing that the substratum of the prosecution case was lost. The Court found that the acquittal and lack of evidence from witnesses warranted quashing under inherent powers as per Section 528 of the BNSS. Therefore, the Court quashed the FIR and trial proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges the trial based on co-accused acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of the prosecution case and the trial court's findings. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 3. court's reasoning for quashing proceedings based on lack of evidence. (Para 8 , 10) |
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2427 OF 2026 -----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in CC No.1502/1998 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram (‘Trial Court’), which has originated from Crime No.100/1987 registered by the Valiyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 379 , 406, 417, 427 and
353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
2. The case against the petitioner was split up and the Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the 1st accused in the crime. By Annexure A3 judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted the 1st accused.
3. The petitioner has filed this Crl.M.C. on the assertion that, in view of Annexure A3 judgment passed in favour of the 1st 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 gist of the prosecution case is that, between
13.11.1985 and 24.04.1987, the accused persons, in violation of the court order, had trespassed into the godown and building of the defacto complainant and caused damages and waste to the building and caused a loss of Rs.5/- lakh to the defacto complainant.
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 Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the 1st accused. By Annexure A3 judgment, the Trial Court found that CW3 had turned hostile to the prosecution. None of the other witnesses had participated in the trial. Consequently, the Trial Court came to a finding that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the above accused persons had committed the above offences. Accordingly, the Trial Court acquitted the 1st accused by Annexure A3 judgment.
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 carefully gone through the allegations in Annexure-A1 FIR, Annexure-A2 Final Report and also the findings in Annexure-A3 judgment.
9. On evaluating the findings in Annexure A3 judgment, I find that only CW3 had appeared and given his evidence. However, he turned hostile to the prosecution. None of the other witnesses had appeared for trial, despite coercive steps taken against them.
10. In light of the findings in Annexure-A3 judgment, I am satisfied that 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. It would be a sheer waste of judicial time to conduct the trial all over again as against the petitioner. Thus, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS and quash the proceedings.
