Criminal proceedings were quashed against co-accused identically situated to those previously granted relief.

The petitioners, Accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.454 of 2018 before the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, were prosecuted for offences under Sections 448, 188, 352 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code arising from an allegation that they, along with two others, entered a temple and obstructed a Sub-Inspector of Police who was performing bandobust duty during a temple festival.

Accused Nos.1 and 2, who were stated to be similarly placed, had earlier secured quashing of the same charge sheet in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8139 of 2022 by order dated 22 April 2022.

The present petitioners consequently sought quashing of the proceedings against them under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the charge sheet in C.C.No.454 of 2018 should be quashed against Accused Nos.3 and 4 on the ground that they stood on the same footing as Accused Nos.1 and 2, in whose favour the same proceedings had already been quashed.

Whether the alleged offences under Sections 448, 352 and 506(2) IPC operated independently of Section 188 IPC so as to prevent quashing of the entire charge sheet against the petitioners.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to prevent abuse of the process of law.

The prosecution invoked Sections 448, 188, 352 and 506(2) IPC.

The Court applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where continuation against an accused would amount to an abuse of process, particularly when co-accused standing on the same factual footing have already obtained quashing of the very same proceedings.

It relied on the earlier order in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8139 of 2022 and the precedents in Jeevanandham v. Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station (2018 2 LW (Crl) 606) and Sri Raja v. Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station, Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7922 of 2019, decided on 30 August 2019.

The Court found that the petitioners were similarly situated to Accused Nos.1 and 2, whose prosecution arising from the same charge sheet had already been quashed on the basis of materially similar facts and applicable precedents.

Although the Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the offences other than Section 188 IPC operated independently and therefore the entire charge sheet could not be quashed, the Court held that the petitioners’ identical footing with the previously successful co-accused was decisive.

Continuing the prosecution only against Accused Nos.3 and 4, despite the earlier quashing of the proceedings against Accused Nos.1 and 2, was considered an abuse of the process of law.

The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.