Kerala High Court
Suresh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:83331
CRL.MC NO. 9309 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 9309 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1135/2013 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, Kollam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.916 OF 2023 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,KOTTARAKKARA
PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:
SURESH KUMAR,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. RADHAKRISHANAN NAIR, THEKKECHARUVILA HOUSE,
SOUTH OF THATTU MUKKU,THAZHATHUKULAKKADA MURI,
KULAKKADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691521
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.B.UDAYAKUMAR
SHRI.MARTHANDAN K.U.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
SR.PP. SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:83331
CRL.MC NO. 9309 OF 2025
2
ORDER
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2025
The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.
916/2013 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate-II, Kottarakkara, which has arisen from
Crime No.1135/2013 registered by the Puthoor Police
Station, Kollam, alleging the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 506(ii), and
153 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The essence of the prosecution case is that, on
17.08.2013, at around 23.30 hours, eight accused
persons, in prosecution of their common intention, had
formed an unlawful assembly, to protest against the
inauguration of Kulakkada Agricultural Improvement Co-
operative Society to be performed by a Minister, raised
slogans during the inauguration time and conducted
protest. Thereafter, they destroyed the flex boards by
using dangerous weapons and obstructed the programme.
2025:KER:83331
CRL.MC NO. 9309 OF 2025
They also brutally assaulted CWs2 and 3 and provocated
the people and committed riot. Thus, the accused have
committed the above offences.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
by Annexure A2 judgment, the accused 1 to 3 and 5 to 7
were found not guilty of the offences alleged against
them, since the prosecution had failed to prove beyond
doubt that the accused had committed the above offences.
Consequently, the above accused persons were acquitted
by the Trial Court. In view of the specific findings in
Annexure A2 judgment, the petitioner is entitled to an
identical order. Now, the case against the petitioner has
been split up and is renumbered as C.C .No.916/2023. If
the petitioner is ordered to undergo the ordeal of trial, it
would be a sheer waste of judicial time. Hence, the
Crl.M.C may be allowed.
2025:KER:83331
CRL.MC NO. 9309 OF 2025
5. Crime No. 1135/2013 was registered against eight
accused persons for allegedly committing the above
offences. The Investigating Officer has laid Annexure A1
final report as against eight accused persons, including
the petitioner.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that he could not
participate in the trial, since he was out of station in
connection with his employment. Nonetheless, the
accused 1 to 3 and 5 to 7, stood the trial, and were
honourably acquitted by Annexure A2 judgment on the
specific finding that the prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had
committed the above offences. It is pertinent to note that
PW1 had testified that he had not seen any of the accused
persons, but only had hearsay knowledge. Similarly,
PWs 2 to 4 also did not support the prosecution case.
Accordingly, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave
up the evidence of the remaining witnesses.
2025:KER:83331
CRL.MC NO. 9309 OF 2025
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
repeatedly reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
this Court in a catena of precedents.
8. After having meticulously gone through the
materials on record, particularly the findings in A2
judgment that none of the prosecution witnesses had
testified against the accused persons, and further that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused persons have
committed the offences, I am of the definite view that the
said findings are squarely applicable to the case of the
petitioner also. Even if the petitioner withstands the
ordeal of trial, it will not yield a different result than
2025:KER:83331
CRL.MC NO. 9309 OF 2025
Annexure A2 judgment. Thus, I am convinced and
satisfied that the findings of acquittal in Annexure A2
judgment should enure to the benefit of the petitioner
also. It would only be a sheer waste of judicial time to
conduct the trial all over again. Thus, in exercise of the
inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, I am inclined to
allow the Crl.M.C.
In the afore said circumstances, I allow this Crl.M.C,
by quashing Annexure A1 final report and all further
proceedings in C.C.No.916/2023 on the files of the Court
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottarakkara, as
against the petitioner.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm4/11/2025
2025:KER:83331
CRL.MC NO. 9309 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 1135/2013 DATED 15/9/2013 OF
PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
9/10/2023 IN C.C. NO. 1319/2015 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II,
KOTTARAKKARA
