The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings against an accused if the substratum of the prosecution's case is lost due to the acquittal of co-accused and the hostility of key witnesses, making further trial futile.

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. 6931 OF 2026

Dated this the 21st day of August, 2026

ORDER

1. The petitioner is the original 5th accused in Crime No.529/2006 registered by the Varkala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, as against 9 accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 341 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As the petitioner was absconding, the case against him was split up and the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Varkala, (‘Trial Court’, in short) proceeded with the trial separately as against accused Nos. 2,3 and 9, accused Nos. 1, 4 and 6, the 8th accused and 7th accused, and by Annexures A3, A4, A6 and A8 judgments respectively, the said accused persons were acquitted. Now, the petitioner has surrendered before the Trial Court and got himself enlarged on bail. The case against him has been renumbered as C.C.No.395/2022.

2. It is the petitioner’s case that, in view of Annexures A3, A4, A6 and A8 judgments, 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. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed.

3. The substratum of the prosecution case is that, on 27.08.2026, at around 20.30 hours, the accused persons in prosecution of their common intention had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, and the 1st accused had restrained CW1 and fisted him on his back, the 2nd accused hit him on his abdomen and the 3rd accused his chest, and the accused Nos. 4 to 9 hit him on the different parts of his body. Thus, the accused have committed the above offeces.

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

5. Admittedly, the petitioner did not face the trial. The Trial Court proceeded with separate trials as against the accused Nos.2,3 & 9, accused Nos. 1,4 & 6, and the 8th accused and the 7th accused and, by Annexures A3, A4, A6 and A8 judgments, acquitted the accused persons on the finding that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the above the accused persons had committed the above offences.

6. 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.

7. I have carefully analysed the allegations in Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report and the findings in Annexures A3, A4, A6 and A8 judgments.

8. A reading of the above judgments substantiate that although CW1 (the defacto complainant), the ocular witness who was examined as PW3, he turned hostile to the prosecution. The other ocular witnesses failed to appear before the Trial Court despite coercive proceedings, and were given up by the prosecution. On the finding that there was no material to prove that the accused persons had committed the above offences, the Trial Court acquitted the said accused persons.

9. In light of the findings in Annexures A3, A4, A6 and A8 judgments, I am satisfied that the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Even if the petitioner withstands th