O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), by the accused in C.C. No.125/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara, arising out of Crime No.1573/2017 of Mavelikkara Police Station, seeking to quash the First Information Report, the final report, and all further proceedings in the said case on the ground that the co-accused has already been acquitted.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

The petitioner was the first accused in C.C. No.735/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara, and was charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 449, 294(b), and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As the presence of the petitioner could not be secured at the time of trial, the case against the second accused was proceeded with separately. Upon a full-fledged trial, the second accused was acquitted of all charges by judgment dated 25.02.2020. Consequently, the case against the petitioner was split up and re-filed as C.C. No.125/2020. According to the petitioner, the continuation of the prosecution against him will serve no useful purpose in view of the acquittal of the co-accused. During the trial of the co-accused, the de facto complainant, who had allegedly sustained injuries in the incident, was examined as PW1. She categorically deposed that she was unable to identify the assailants as several persons had gathered at the place of occurrence. Likewise, the occurrence witness also failed to support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. In these circumstances, there is no likelihood of securing a conviction against the petitioner and that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Hence, the petitioner seeks to quash the FIR, the final report, and all further proceedings in C.C. No.125/2020.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the records.

The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the criminal proceedings against him are liable to be quashed since the co-accused has already been acquitted after a full-fledged trial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that the acquittal of a co-accused does not, by itself, entitle the remaining accused to an order quashing the proceedings. However, where the acquittal of the co-accused is founded on a complete collapse of the prosecution case, and no independent or additional evidence survives against the remaining accused, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be unwarranted and would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. On the other hand, if there exists any independent or legally sustainable evidence against the accused who is yet to face trial, this Court would not be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to facts, it can be seen that the prosecution sought to establish the charges primarily through the evidence of the de facto complainant and the occurrence witness. As evident from the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of the co-accused, when the de facto complainant was examined as PW1, she categorically stated that she could not identify the assailants. The occurrence witness also failed to support the prosecution case. The trial court has further recorded that no other incriminating or convincing evidence was adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the co-accused.

It is evident that the prosecution case against the petitioner is going to rest on the very same evidence that was adduced against the acquitted co-accused. The prosecution has not pointed out the existence of any independent, additional, or distinguishable material which would be relied upon against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the very foundation