[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sanu D Christopher vs State Of Kerala on 30 March, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 1988 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:28286
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 1988 OF 2026
CRIME NO.503/2018 OF Cherthala Police Station, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.758 OF 2025 OF
ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT / COMMERCIAL COURT, CHERTHALA
PETITIONER/S:
SANU D CHRISTOPHER
AGED 31 YEARS
CP COTTAGE, PULIYARAKKONAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 683572
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.A.SULFIA
SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN -
688524
PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 1988 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:28286
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 1988 of 2026
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the original 8 th accused in Crime
No.503/2018 registered by the Cherthala Police Station,
Alappuzha, against 12 accused persons for allegedly
committing of the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 332 and 333 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. The case against the petitioner was split up and the
trial as against the accused 1 to 6, 9 to 12 was conducted by
the Assistant Sessions Judge, Cherthala in SC No.375/2021,
and the said accused persons were acquitted as per Annexure
A3 judgment. Subsequently, the case against the petitioner
has been re-numbered as SC No.758/2025.
3. The petitioner has stated in the Crl.M.C. that, in
view of Annexure-A3 judgment, acquitting the other co-
accused in the crime, the substratum of the prosecution case
has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the
CRL.MC NO. 1988 OF 2026
2026:KER:28286
trial, it is not going to lead to a conviction. Hence, it would be
a sheer waste of judicial time to conduct the trial all over
again, against the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings as
against the petitioner may be quashed.
4. The gist of the prosecution case is that, on
11.02.2018, at around 16:15 hours, the accused 1 to 12, in
prosecution of their common intention, had formed an
unlawful assembly and obstructed the traffic on the National
Highway. When PW12 and his party attempted to remove the
obstruction, the 1st accused twisted his fingers and he suffered
a fracture. The 2nd accused also twisted the hand of PW10 and
caused hurt to him. Due to the attack of the accused 3 to 12
the Police Officers suffered injuries and also it hampered the
discharge of their official functions. Thus, the accused have
committed the above offences.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner had not participated in the
trial. The Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the
accused 1 to 6, 9 to 12. By Annexure A3 judgment, the Trial
CRL.MC NO. 1988 OF 2026
2026:KER:28286
Court found that ocular witnesses had turned hostile to the
prosecution. Consequently, the Trial Court came to a finding
that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused persons had committed the above
offences.
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 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 gone through the allegations in
Annexure-A1 FIR, Annexure-A2 Final Report and also the
findings in Annexure-A3 judgment.
9. On evaluating the findings in Annexure A3 judgment,
I find that the specific overt act has been attributed against
the accused 1 and 2. Yet the ocular witnesses had all failed to
identify the accused persons. Consequently, the Trial Court
CRL.MC NO. 1988 OF 2026
2026:KER:28286
came to a conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons have
committed the above offences. Accordingly, the above accused
persons were acquitted.
10. In light of the findings in Annexure-A3 judgment, I
am satisfied that the substratum of the prosecution case has
been lost. Therefore, it would be a sheer waste of judicial time
to conduct the trial all over again as against the petitioner.
Thus, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the
inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS
and quash the proceedings.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C. by
quashing Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure-A2 Final Report and all
further proceedings in SC No.758/2025 of the Trial Court as
against the petitioner.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc
CRL.MC NO. 1988 OF 2026
2026:KER:28286
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1988 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 11/2/2018
FIS IN CRIME NO.503/2018 OF CHERTHALA POLICE
STATION
Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED
25/04/2018 TOGETHER STATEMENT OF WITNESSES IN
S.C. NO.758/2025 OF THE COURT OF ASSISTANT
SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA DIVISION AT
CHERTHALA
Annexure A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED
16/06/2025 IN SC NO. 375/2021 ON THE FILES OF
THE LEARNED ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT,
ALAPPUZHA AT CHERTHALA
