[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sunesh. P vs State Of Kerala on 18 December, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 2647 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:97885
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 2647 OF 2024
CRIME NO.351/2012 OF Hosdurg Police Station, Kasargod
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1305 OF 2023 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,HOSDRUG
PETITIONER/S:
1 SUNESH. P,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O SURENDRAN, HOSDURG KADAPPURAM, HOSDURG VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671315
2 SUDHEESH. K,AGED 33 YEARS
SURESHAN, HOSDURG KADAPPURAM, HOSDURG VILLAGE, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT-, PIN - 671315
3 AJITH. P. V,AGED 31 YEARS
S/O CHANDRIKA, HOSDURG KADAPPURAM, HOSDURG VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671315
BY ADV SRI.P.K.SUBHASH
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULUM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2647 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:97885
C.S.DIAS, J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.2647 OF 2024
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of December, 2025
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused in CC No.1375/2023
on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class-I, Hosdurg (Trial Court), which has originated from
Crime No.351/2012, registered by the Hosdurg Police
Station, Kasargod, alleging the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 427, 452,
153(A) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The gravamen of the prosecution case is as
follows:
On 19.04.2012 at 22:00 hours, the accused persons,
who were 11 in number, formed themselves into an
unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and, in prosecution
of their common intention, had trespassed into the house of
PW1 and caused hurt to him and abused him in vulgar
language. They also committed mischief in the houses of
CRL.MC NO. 2647 OF 2024
2025:KER:97885
PWs 1, 3 and 6 and caused a loss of Rs.31,247/- to them in
the said incident.
3. The petitioners assert that, although they were
enlarged on bail at the crime stage, subsequently, they did
not receive any summons from the Trial Court.
Consequently, the case against them was split up and the
trial as against the accused 1, 4 to 9 and 11 proceeded.
However, by Annexure A2 judgment, the above accused
persons were honourably acquitted, since the prosecution
had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had
committed the above offences. Annexure A2 judgment may
enure to the benefit of the petitioners also. There would be
no useful purpose in conducting the trial all over again for
the petitioners. It would be a sheer waste of judicial time
to conduct the trial as against the petitioners. Hence, the
Criminal Miscellaneous Case.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
CRL.MC NO. 2647 OF 2024
2025:KER:97885
5. Crime No.351/2012 was registered against 11
accused persons alleging them to have committed the
above offences.
6. Indisputably, the petitioners had not participated in
the trial. By Annexure A2 judgment, the Trial Court has
acquitted the accused 1, 4 to 9 and 11 on the specific
finding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the said accused persons had
committed the above offences, especially, in view of the fact
that all the occurrence witnesses had turned hostile to the
prosecution.
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 very 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
CRL.MC NO. 2647 OF 2024
2025:KER:97885
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 analysed the allegations in Annexure
A1 Final Report and the findings in Annexure A2 judgment.
9. A reading of the findings in Annexure A2 judgment
shows that, though the prosecution had cited PWs 1 to 6, all
the witnesses had turned hostile to the prosecution. They
had testified that they did not identify the assailants and
that they had not suffered any loss in the incident.
Consequently, the Trial Court concluded that the
prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the said accused have committed the above offences.
10. In light of the findings in Annexure A2 judgment, I
am satisfied that the substratum of the prosecution case
has been lost. The findings in Annexure A2 judgment is
squarely applicable to the petitioners also. Even if the
CRL.MC NO. 2647 OF 2024
2025:KER:97885
petitioners withstand the ordeal of trial, I am definite that it
would not yield a different result than Annexure A2
judgment. Thus, I am convinced that the findings in
Annexure A2 judgment should enure to the benefit of the
petitioners also. It would be a sheer waste of judicial time
to conduct the trial all over again. Thus, I am inclined to
allow the Crl.M.C, by exercising the inherent powers of this
Court under Section 528 of BNSS.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the Crl.M.C is
allowed, and consequently, Annexure A1 final report and all
further proceedings in CC No.1375/2023 of the Trial Court,
as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/18.12.25
CRL.MC NO. 2647 OF 2024
2025:KER:97885
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 2647 OF 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.351OF 2012 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT
Annexure A2 THE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 23.05.2023 IN
SC 331 OF 2016 BEFORE THE C.C.NO.774 OF 2017
ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-1, HOSDURG
