Sreehari Bose vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 10376 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sreehari Bose vs State Of Kerala on 31 October, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                     2025:KER:82597
CRL.MC NO. 9070 OF 2025            1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

     FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1947

                      CRL.MC NO. 9070 OF 2025

 CRIME NO.22/2016 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

  IN CC NO.80 OF 2025 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PATHANAMTHITTA

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 4:

    1     SREEHARI BOSE,
          AGED 32 YEARS
          S/O.CHANDRA BOSE,KUTTYANI KIZHAKKETHIL
          VEETTIL,KADUVAKUZHI,THAZHAM MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN -
          689666

    2     SUJESH.K.S
          AGED 33 YEARS
          S/O.SURESH, KUZHIPARAMBIL VEEDU,MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE
          THAZHAM MURIYIL, KADUVAKUZHI,PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -
          689666


          BY ADVS.
          SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA)
          SHRI.KURIEN BIJU



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

    1     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

    2     SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
          PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -
          689647

    3     NIKHIL PRASAD
          AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.PRASAD, THUNDIYIL VEETTIL, NEAR GOVT
          L.PSCHOOL,THAZHAM.P.O,MALAYALAPPUZHA
                                                     2025:KER:82597
CRL.MC NO. 9070 OF 2025           2


          VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689531

    4     PRAVEEN.P.NAIR
          AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.PRASANNAN NAIR, KIZHAKKEMURIYIL
          VEEDU,KANJIRAPPARA,THAZHAM.P.O, EDANADU
          VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689531

    5     HARI PRASAD
          AGED,26 YEARS,S/O.SUBHASH, SIVA
          BHAVAN ,MAROOR ,KANJIRAPPARA,POTHEEPPADU,ERAM.P.O,
          MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN -
          689531


          BY ADVS.
          SMT.ANNIE M.ABRAHAM
          SHRI.LIBIN JOSEPH

           PP - SRI SANAL P RAJ


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                   2025:KER:82597
CRL.MC NO. 9070 OF 2025        3


                           C.S.DIAS, J.
               ---------------------------------------
                 Crl.MC No. 9070 OF 2025
              -----------------------------------------
          Dated this the 31st day of October, 2025

                            ORDER

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 4 in C.C.

No.80/2025 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate

Court, Pathanamthitta, which arises out of Crime

No.22/2016 registered by the Pathanamthitta Police Station,

as against the accused persons for allegedly committing the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 341, 323,

324 and 427 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The the prosecution case, in essence, is that, on

02.01.2016, at 20.00 hours, the accused persons, in

prosecution of their common intention, had wrongfully

restrained CWs 1 to 4 and the 2 nd accused stamped CW1

and accused Nos.3 and 4 attacked CW3 and the 3rd accused

attacked CW3 with a stick and hit him on his head. While 2025:KER:82597

CW2 intervened in the matter, the 4 th accused slapped him

on his face. Thus, the accused have committed the above

offences.

3. The petitioners assert that,they got themselves

enlarged on bail at the crime stage. Subsequently, they did

not receive any summons in the matter. The case against

them was split up and the case against accused Nos.2 and 5

was renumbered as C.C. No.51/2020 and they withstood the

trial. By Annexure-A3 judgment the Trial Court acquitted

the said accused on the specific finding that the prosecution

has failed beyond reasonable doubt to substantiate that the

said accused persons had committed the above offences. In

view of the specific findings in Annexure-A3 judgment that

the prosecution has failed prove the involvement of the said

accused in the crime, the petitioners are also entitled to

benefit of the findings in the said judgment. Now, the

petitioners have got themselves enlarged on bail and their

case has been renumbered as C.C. No.80/2025. The

continuance of proceedings would be a sheer waste of 2025:KER:82597

judicial time. Therefore, the Crl.M.C. may be allowed.

4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Crime No.22/2016 was registered against the

accused persons for allegedly committing the offences

mentioned above. The Investigating Officer laid Annexure-

A2 Final Report as against all the accused persons.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did not

participate in the trial. However, the trial against accused

Nos.2 and 5 proceeded and Annexure-A3 judgment has been

passed in their favour on the specific finding that PWs 1

and 2 deposed that, though somebody attacked them, they

could not identify the assailants. The prosecution also did

not produce any materials to substantiate the involvement

of the said accused in the crime. Therefore, the prosecution

has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the

involvement of the said accused in the crime. Therefore, it

would be sheer waste of judicial time to continue the

proceedings as against the petitioners.

2025:KER:82597

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 carefully analyzed the materials on

record, particularly the findings in Annexure-A3 judgment,

wherein the Trial Court has found that the prosecution has

miserably failed to prove that the accused persons had

committed the above offences and there is no material to

conclude that the injured were attacked by the accused

persons, I am of the definite view that the said findings is

squarely applicable to the case of the petitioners also. Even

if the petitioners withstand the ordeal of trial, it is not going

to yield a different result than Annexure-A3 judgment.

Thus, I am convinced and satisfied that the findings of 2025:KER:82597

acquittal in Annexure-A3 judgment in favour of the accused

Nos.2 and 5 enhears to the benefit of the petitioners also. It

would only be a sheer waste of judicial time to make the

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 FIR and Annexure-A2 final report

and all further proceedings in C.C.No.80/2025 on the files of

the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta as

against the petitioners.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE SCB 2025:KER:82597

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.22/2016 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 02/01/2016 Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 22/2016 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 31/03/2016 Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/07/2025 IN C.C NO.51/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE HON CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT PATHANAMTHITTA Annexure A4 ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.09.2025 Annexure A5 ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 19.09.2025 Annexure A6 ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 19.09.2025