[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Arun vs State Of Kerala on 18 December, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 11291 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:97832
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. 11291 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1114/2011 OF Cantonment Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.320 OF 2016 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
ARUN,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O SURENDRAN, KRISHNA BHAVAN, TC 11/118, PANAVILA
DESOM, NALANCHIRA WARD, ULLUR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.VINOD
SHRI.SUHAIL M.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,CANTONMENT POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S
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. 11291 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:97832
C.S.DIAS, J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.11291 OF 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of December, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in CC No.302/2012 on
the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class-III, Thiruvananthapuram (Trial Court), which has
originated from Crime No.1114/2011, registered by the
Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein
the petitioner was ranked as accused No.1, for allegedly
committing the offences punishable under Sections 341
and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The concise case of the prosecution is that:
On 22.12.2011 at 17:00 hours, the 1st accused
wrongfully restrained CW1 and attempted to beat him
with a crowbar, and intimidated to cause his death. Then
the accused 2 and 3 also abused and intimidated CW1.
3. The petitioner states that, although he got
himself enlarged on bail at the crime stage, subsequently,
CRL.MC NO. 11291 OF 2025
2025:KER:97832
he did not receive any summons from the Trial Court.
Consequently, the case against him was split up and the
trial as against the accused 2 and 3 proceeded. By
Annexure A2 judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted the
accused 2 and 3 since CWs 1 and 2 did not turn up to give
any evidence. In view of the findings in Annexure A2
judgment, no useful purpose would be served in
proceeding with the trial as against the petitioner.
Annexure A2 judgment may enure to the benefit of the
petitioner also. It would be a sheer waste of judicial time
to conduct the trial as against the petitioner. Hence, the
Criminal Miscellaneous Case.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Crime No.1114/2011 was registered by the
Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram as
against three accused persons including the petitioner.
CRL.MC NO. 11291 OF 2025
2025:KER:97832
6. On a perusal of Annexure A2 judgment, it is seen
that though repeated summons and coercive proceedings
were taken against CWs 1 and 2, they failed to appear
before the Trial Court and give evidence. Consequently,
the Trial Court felt that no useful purpose would be served
in proceeding with the trial. Accordingly, by Annexure A2
judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused 2 and
3 in the above crime.
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
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
CRL.MC NO. 11291 OF 2025
2025:KER:97832
Annexure A1 Final Report and the findings in Annexure A2
judgment. A reading of the findings in Annexure A2
judgment clearly reveals that the trial as against the
accused 2 and 3 could not be proceeded with because the
occular witnesses, namely CWs 1 and 2, failed to turn up
to give evidence. Consequently, there was no material to
substantiate that the accused 2 and 3 had committed the
above offences and that the prosecution had miserably
failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the said
accused persons had committed the above offences.
9. 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 petitioner also. Even if the
petitioner withstands 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
CRL.MC NO. 11291 OF 2025
2025:KER:97832
petitioner 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, Crl.M.C is allowed,
and consequently, Annexure A1 final report and all further
proceedings in CC No.302/2012 on the file of the Court of
the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III,
Thiruvananthapuram as against the petitioner, are hereby
quashed.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/18.12.25
CRL.MC NO. 11291 OF 2025
2025:KER:97832
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 11291 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C
NO.302/2012 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -IIL
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 02.01.2012
Annexure A-2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
22.02.2016 IN C.C NO 302/2012 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
