The principle of parity mandates that where prosecution evidence against co-accused is inseparable and indivisible, the acquittal of some accused on merits justifies quashing the proceedings against the remaining accused to prevent the futile ordeal of a redundant trial.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 332, 353, 323, 307, 506(ii) - Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 - Section 3 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Principle of parity - Where evidence against multiple accused is inseparable and indivisible, acquittal of co-accused on merits serves as a valid ground to extend the same benefit to remaining accused to avoid unnecessary ordeal of trial. (Paras 7 and 9)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of proceedings - Prosecution for same incident - Trial against split-up accused - When charges and evidence against an accused are identical to those of co-accused who have been acquitted, continuing the prosecution against the remaining accused constitutes an exercise in futility and waste of judicial time. (Paras 7, 8 and 9)

Facts of the case:
A criminal petition was filed seeking to quash a charge sheet pending in a trial court. The petitioner was one of the accused in a multi-accused case involving various offences of violence. Due to his absence during the initial proceedings, his trial was split up. The co-accused underwent a full trial and were subsequently acquitted by both the trial court and the appellate court. The petitioner, upon returning, sought the quashing of the proceedings against him, contending that the evidence against all accused was inseparable and that the principle of parity should apply.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the evidence presented against all accused persons was common, inseparable, and indivisible. Since the co-accused had already been acquitted of the charges after a comprehensive trial, subjecting the petitioner to the same legal process would serve no useful purpose and would be a wastage of the court's time.

Issues: The main issue was whether criminal proceedings should be quashed against an accused when other co-accused, against whom substantially similar evidence existed, have already been acquitted by competent courts.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases where the prosecution's evidence is found to be indivisible, the principle of parity mandates that the acquittal of some accused on merits must extend to others similarly situated, as a separate trial would be a futile exercise without any prospect of conviction.

Result: Criminal Original Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

ORDER

Seeking quashment of the charge sheet in S.C.No.191 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Pattukottai, this criminal original petition is filed.

2. Since no adverse order is passed against the 2^nd respondent, notice to the 2^nd respondent is dispensed with.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the complaint of the 2^nd respondent, F.I.R in Crime No.220 of 2000 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 332, 353, 323, 307 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 on the file of the 1^st respondent against 28 named accused and other unidentified accused, where the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.10. After investigation, final report was laid against 28 accused persons and some other unidentified persons before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Pattukottai and the case was taken on file as P.R.C.No.53 of 2002. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had gone abroad for his livelihood and he is the sole breadwinner of his family. In the interregnum P.R.C.No.53 of 2002 was split up insofar as the petitioner and other accused persons, namely Accused Nos.4, 14 and 24 are concerned and it was renumbered as P.R.C.No.44 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai and the ranks were rearranged as Accused Nos.1 to 22 and the case was taken on file as S.C.No.364 of 2008 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Pattukottai (Bench), Thanjavur. After examining P.Ws.1 to 10 and marking Exs.P1 to P11, M.Os.1 to 6, Accused Nos.2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 were convicted and the remaining accused were acquitted. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Accused No.2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 have preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.123 of 2010 before the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Pattukottai. After perusing the entire evidence and hearing the detailed arguments on both the sides, judgment was passed on 12.03.2013, acquitting all the accused persons. After the committal proceedings in P.R.C.No.44 of 2008, which was split up against the petitioner, the case was renumbered as S.C.No.191 of 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court, Pattukottai. During the petitioner's stay in India, no summons were served on him either by the 1^st respondent or by the Court. Thereafter, it is understood that the Non-Bailable Warrant has also been issued against him. Recently, in 2023, when the petitioner returned to India, he came to know about the issuance of the said Non-Bailable Warrant. Subsequently, he was arrested and released on bail on 02.09.2025. Categorically contending that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the judgment of acquittal in the order passed in S.C.No. 364 of 2008 dated 30.11.2010 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pattukottai, Thanjavur and in the subsequent judgment in Crl.A.No.123 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Pattukottai, dated 12.03.2013, this criminal original petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Muthuchezhiyan @ Muthuezhilan , [Crl.O.P(MD)No.17653/2017, dated 27.11.2019] and Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat , [(2023) 9 SCC 164], in which both this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court had considered similar circumstances and quashed the respective cases, sought indulgence of this Court to quash the pending charge sheet in S.C.No.191 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Pattukottai.

5. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that at the time of police patrol, the accused persons unlawfully gathered and attacked police officials, abused in filthy language and caused damage to the police jeep by using weapons. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the criminal original petition.

6. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. The relevant portion of the order in Muthuchezhiyan @ Muthuezhilan , [Crl.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 22553

The principle of parity mandates that where prosecution evidence against co-accused is inseparable and indivisible, the acquittal of some accused on merits justifies quashing the proceedings against the remaining accused to prevent the futile ordeal of a redundant trial.

Cases Referred (5)