The inherent power of the High Court can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings against an accused if the substratum of the prosecution's case is lost due to the acquittal of co-accused persons based on the same evidence.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.08.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------

CRL.MC NO. 5179 OF 2026

------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 21st day of August, 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.154/2007 registered by the Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha, as against two accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. As the petitioner was absconding, the case against him was split up and the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -II, Cherthala, proceeded with the trial as against the 1st accused. By Annexure A10 judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the 1st accused. Subsequently, the petitioner has surrendered before the Trial Court and the case has been renumbered as C.C.No.1796/2011.

It is the case of the petitioner is that, in view of Annexure A10 judgment, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the trial, its not going to lead to a conviction. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner may also be quashed.

The substratum of the prosecution case is that;

On 29.04.2007, at around 11.00 hours, the four persons were found seated in an auto- rickshaw with an intention to assault someone with two swords. The Investigating Officer clearly identified only the 1st accused and the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Indisputably, the petitioner did not face the trial. The Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the 1st accused. By Annexure A10 judgment, the Trial Court on finding that PWs 1 and 2 had turned hostile to the prosecution, found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st accused had committed the above offences. Accordingly, the Trial Court by Annexure A10 judgment acquitted the 1st accused.

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.

I have carefully gone through the allegations in the FIR, final report and the findings in Annexure A10 judgment.

On an analysis of Annexure A10 judgment, I find that the two alleged occurrence witnesses, namely PWs 1 and 2, have testified that they did not see the assailants.. Consequently, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that the said witnesses had turned hostile to the prosecution. Due to lack of evidence, the Trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st accused had committed the above o

In light of the finding in Annexure A10 judgment, I am satisfied that the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it is not going to lead to a conviction. It would be a sheer waste of judicial time to conduct the trial as against the petitioner all over again. Thus, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C by quashing Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.1796/2011 on the file of the Trial Court, as against the petitioner.