Madras High Court
Ibramsha @ Ibram Moosa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 January, 2026
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.1915 & 1916 of 2026
Ibramsha @ Ibram Moosa ... Petitioner/A10
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
The Inspector of Police,
Sethubavachatram Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.220/2000) ... Respondent/Complainant
2.R.Thangavel ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023, to call for the records pertaining to the case registered in
impugned charge sheet in S.C.No.191 of 2010 on the file of the III
Additional District and Sessions Court, Pattukottai in Crime No.220 of
2000 on the file of 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sheik Nasurdeen
For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 11:11:52 am )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026
ORDER
Seeking quashment of the charge sheet in S.C.No.191 of 2010 on
the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Pattukottai,
this criminal original petition is filed.
2. Since no adverse order is passed against the 2nd respondent,
notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the
complaint of the 2nd respondent, F.I.R in Crime No.220 of 2000 was
registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 332, 353, 323, 307
and 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of
Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 on the file of the 1 st respondent against 28
named accused and other unidentified accused, where the petitioner was
arrayed as Accused No.10. After investigation, final report was laid
against 28 accused persons and some other unidentified persons before
the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Pattukottai and the case was
taken on file as P.R.C.No.53 of 2002. In the meanwhile, the petitioner
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 11:11:52 am )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026
had gone abroad for his livelihood and he is the sole breadwinner of his
family. In the interregnum P.R.C.No.53 of 2002 was split up insofar as
the petitioner and other accused persons, namely Accused Nos.4, 14 and
24 are concerned and it was renumbered as P.R.C.No.44 of 2008 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai and the ranks were rearranged
as Accused Nos.1 to 22 and the case was taken on file as S.C.No.364 of
2008 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Pattukottai (Bench), Thanjavur.
After examining P.Ws.1 to 10 and marking Exs.P1 to P11, M.Os.1 to 6,
Accused Nos.2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 were convicted and the remaining accused
were acquitted. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Accused No.2, 4, 6, 7
and 8 have preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.123 of 2010 before the III
Additional District and Sessions Court, Pattukottai. After perusing the
entire evidence and hearing the detailed arguments on both the sides,
judgment was passed on 12.03.2013, acquitting all the accused persons.
After the committal proceedings in P.R.C.No.44 of 2008, which was
split up against the petitioner, the case was renumbered as S.C.No.191
of 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions
Court, Pattukottai. During the petitioner’s stay in India, no summons
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 11:11:52 am )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026
were served on him either by the 1st respondent or by the Court.
Thereafter, it is understood that the Non-Bailable Warrant has also been
issued against him. Recently, in 2023, when the petitioner returned to
India, he came to know about the issuance of the said Non-Bailable
Warrant. Subsequently, he was arrested and released on bail on
02.09.2025. Categorically contending that the petitioner is entitled to
the benefit of the judgment of acquittal in the order passed in S.C.No.
364 of 2008 dated 30.11.2010 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
Pattukottai, Thanjavur and in the subsequent judgment in Crl.A.No.123
of 2010 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court,
Pattukottai, dated 12.03.2013, this criminal original petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of
Muthuchezhiyan @ Muthuezhilan1 and Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi
Vs. State of Gujarat2, in which both this Court and the Hon’ble Apex
Court had considered similar circumstances and quashed the respective
cases, sought indulgence of this Court to quash the pending charge
1 Crl.O.P(MD)No.17653/2017, dated 27.11.2019
2 (2023) 9 SCC 164
4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 11:11:52 am )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026
sheet in S.C.No.191 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional District
and Sessions Court, Pattukottai.
5. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that at
the time of police patrol, the accused persons unlawfully gathered and
attacked police officials, abused in filthy language and caused damage
to the police jeep by using weapons. Hence, he sought for dismissal of
the criminal original petition.
6. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
7. The relevant portion of the order in Muthuchezhiyan @
Muthuezhilan1 is extracted hereunder :
6. It is seen from the records that all the other accused
persons have been acquitted in Spl.S.C.No.30 and
Spl.S.C.No.85 of 2010 by judgments dated 10.04.2017 and
19.09.2018 respectively. The charges against this petitioner
is also similar to the charges that were faced by the other
1 Crl.O.P(MD)No.17653/2017, dated 27.11.20195/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 11:11:52 am )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026accused persons. The petitioner is also placed on the same
footing and there is no other independent evidence available
against the petitioner.
7. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner squarely covers the facts of the present case.
(i) In Thamilendi vs. State rep by Inspector of Police,
Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District reported in
2008 (2) CTC 153, the relevant paragraphs are extracted
hereunder:
“ 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on a decision of this Court in
Tamilmaran v. State, 2007 (1) LW (Crl.) 514, to the
proposition that in the event of acquittal of the other
accused disbelieving the entire prosecution case, no
useful purpose would be served for putting the
petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trial. In that
decision this Court placed reliance on a decision of
Delhi High Court in Sunil Kumar v. State, 2000 (1)
Crimes 73, wherein it is held as follows:
“3. The question thus is as to
whether in the face of the judgment of
acquittal the petitioner should still be
permitted to undergo the ordeal of a trial.
In Sat Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR
1974 SC 294, it was held that there is no
rule of law that if the Court acquits some
of the accused on the evidence of a witness6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 11:11:52 am )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026raising doubt with regard to them the
other accused against whom there is
absolute certainty about his complicity in
the crime based on the remaining credible
part of the evidence of that witness must be
acquitted. (See also Har Prasad v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 1450;
Makan Jivan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1971
SC 1797; Mohd. Moin Uddin v. State of
Maharashtra, 1971 SCC (Cri.) 617). But
where the evidence against all the accused
persons is inseparable and indivisible and
if some of the accused persons have been
acquitted, the remaining accused persons
cannot be treated differently on the basis
of the same evidence.
4. On perusal of the judgment of
acquittal dated 19.1.1998, it appears that
the deceased-Balwan Singh met with a
homicidal death owing to burn injuries
sustained by him has not been disputed by
the accused persons. The evidence against
the accused persons mainly consists of the
evidence of the eye-witnesses, namely,
Karan Singh (PW 2) and Smt. Asha Rani
(PW-5) (Wife of the deceased Balwan
Singh) besides the dying declaration
(Ex.PW-13/A) of the deceased Balwan
Singh. Both the said witnesses have not
supported the prosecution case and so they
have been declared hostile by the
prosecution. Eliminating the evidence of
the said eye-witnesses, there remains the
dying declaration (Ex.PW.13/A) of the
deceased Balwan Singh, which has been
disbelieved by the learned Additional7/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 11:11:52 am )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026Sessions Judge. It would, therefore,
appear that the accused persons, namely,
Jangli Tyagi, Balbir Singh, Anil Kumar
Tyagi and Sushil Kumar Tyagi were
acquitted on the gorund of insufficiency of
evidence. Thus, the evidence adduced in
the case against all the accused persons is
inseparable and indivisible and that being
so the petitioner cannot be treated
differently on the basis of the said
evidence. In this view of the matter, there
is no prospect of the case ending in
conviction against the petitioner and the
valuable time of the Court would be
wasted for holding trial only for the
purpose of formally completing the
procedure to pronounce the conclusion on
a future date. If the Court is almost certain
that the trial only would be an exercise in
futility or sheer wastage of time, it is
advisable to truncate or ship the
proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of
the Code itself.”
7. This Court has also placed reliance on yet
another decision of the Karnataka High Court in
Mohammed Ilias v. State of Karnataka, 2001 (4)
Crimes 417, taking the same view by following the
decision rendered by the Delhi High Court
[Tamilmaran v. State, 2007 (1) LW (Crl.) 514].
9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
view that no useful purpose would be served by
putting the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trial
8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 11:11:52 am )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026
and as such the proceedings pending against the
petitioner in S.C. No. 202 of 1999 on the file of the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, is
hereby quashed.”
(ii) In Chinnappa @ Mahendran vs. the State rep. by
the Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur
District reported in 2015 (1) MWN (Cr.) 259, the relevant
paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
“16. By a catena of decisions it is well settled
that where the evidence against all the accused is
inseparable and indivisible and if some of the accused
persons were acquitted, the remaining accused cannot
be treated differently on the very same evidence (See
MOHD. MOIN UDDIN V. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA, (1971 SCC (CRI.) 617)).
17. In C.B.I. V. AKILESH SINGH (AIR 2005 SC
268), the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the quashing of
the case against main accused under 482 Cr.P.C, who
is alleged to have hatched the conspiracy and who
had the motive to kill the deceased, the case against
the other accused were discharged from the case on
the ground that no purpose would be served in further
proceedings with the case against them.
9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 11:11:52 am )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026
18. Similar view has been taken in
MOHAMMED ILIAS V. STATE OF KARNATAKA
(2001 (4) CRIMES 417).
19. Close on the heels, is the decision of my
most esteemed Brother Hon’ble Justice K.N.Basha in
TAMILENDI V. STATE (2008 (2) CTC 153) where
there are more than one accused, trial against one
absconding accused was split up and the remaining
accused were tried, it was established that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charge including
the murder charge under Section 302 I.P.C, they were
acquitted, in such circumstances, my learned Brother
held that in such circumstances no useful purpose
would be served by directing the remaining accused
to undergo the ordeal of trial.”
8. It is very clear from the above judgments that, where
the evidence of all the accused persons is inseparable and
indivisible and some of the accused persons have been
acquitted, the remaining accused persons cannot be treated
differently based on the very same evidence. No useful
purpose would be served by making the petitioner undergo the
ordeal of trial.
9. In the result, the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.31 of
2017 on the file of the learned First Additional District &
10/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 11:11:52 am )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026
Sessions Judge(PCR), Thanjavur is hereby quashed and
accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.(MD) No.11553 of 2017 is
closed.
8. The relevant portion of the case in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi
Vs. State of Gujarat1 is extracted hereunder :
“15. When there is similar or identical evidence of
eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same
or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and
acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused
will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle
means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike,
and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction
between the two accused, which will amount to
discrimination.”
9. Even in the instant case, only after complete trial, the accused
in S.C.No.364 of 2008 dated 30.11.2010 were acquitted by the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge, Pattukottai, Thanjavur and the same has been
acknowledged and detailed appeal has also been conducted in Crl.A.No.
1 (2023) 9 SCC 164
11/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 11:11:52 am )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026
123 of 2010, in which even those who were convicted by the trial Court
were also acquitted. Since the evidence of all the accused in S.C.No.364
of 2008 and Crl.A.No.123 of 2010 and the pending case in S.C.No.191
of 2010 are inseparable and indivisible, consideration that all the
accused in S.C.No.364 of 2008 were already been acquitted, the
remaining accused person cannot be treated differently based on the
same evidence. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that no useful
purpose would be served by making the petitioner herein undergo the
ordeal of trial. Therefore, S.C.No.191 of 2010 on the file of the III
Additional District and Sessions Court, Pattukottai in Crime No.220 of
2000 on the file of 1st respondent police is hereby quashed as against the
petitioner.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
30.01.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 11:11:52 am )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026
gbg
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Court,
Pattukottai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sethubavachatram Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 11:11:52 am )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
gbg
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1755 of 2026
30.01.2026
14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 11:11:52 am )