ORDER : This Crl.M.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 Final Report in C.C.No.573/2015 in LP No.18/2025 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Attingal. 2. Petitioner had been arrayed as the 4 th accused, along with five others, in the said C.C., alleging offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147 , 294 (b), 427, and 506 (i) read with Section 149 of the IPC . The allegation of the prosecution was that the accused persons, six in number, were the students of Sree Narayana College of Chempazhanthy and on 14.07.2009, at around 3.00 P.M., they had after receiving the caution deposit from the college, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and uttered obscene words against certain students in the college and had also threatened them. It was further alleged that the accused persons had destroyed the flex board and the no parking board installed in the campus and thereby caused loss of Rs.2,000/- to the college. Crime No.357 of 2009 of Kazhakuttom Police Station was registered against the accused persons including the petitioner. The FIR and FIS in the said crime is produced as Annexure A1. Though the petitioner along with the other accused had appeared before the court when the case was posted for recording of the plea, the petitioner had failed to appear before the trial court as he was out of station in connection with his avocation. Hence, the trial of the matter proceeded with the remaining accused which ultimately led to their acquittal as per Annexure A3 judgment. The case against the petitioner was split up and renumbered as C.C.No.573 of 2015 and the same had been transferred to the Long Pending Register and renumbered as LP No.18 of 2025. It is the contention of the petitioner that since out of the six accused, all the five who had faced the trial had been acquitted for the reason that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused there is no occasion for convicting the petitioner even if the proceedings are pursued as against him alone. He has thus filed the Crl.M.C. seeking to quash the FIR and Final Report as against him. 3. Heard Sri. K.B. Arun Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/ respondents. 4. He has thus filed the Crl.M.C. seeking to quash the FIR and Final Report as against him. 3. Heard Sri. K.B. Arun Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/ respondents. 4. This Court had vide order dated 03.03.2005 in this Crl.M.C. permitted the petitioner to surrender before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and to seek bail which was directed to be considered on the date of surrender itself. So as to enable such surrender and filing of bail application, the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner was kept in abeyance for two weeks. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with the said order, bail had been obtained by the petitioner and all that now remains is the principal prayer in the Crl.M.C. seeking to quash the FIR and Final Report. 5. It is trite as laid down by this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [ 2006 (1) KLT 552 (F.B.) ] and Subash v. State of Kerala ( 2011 KHC 451 ) that if the substratum of the prosecution case itself is affected, no purpose will be served in proceeding against the accused who has not faced the trial and consequently, in such cases the proceedings initiated against the remaining accused is fit to be quashed. I note that by Annexure A3 judgment, the other accused charged along with the petitioner have already been acquitted. No useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution against the petitioner to continue. 6. In view of the above, Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 Final Report in C.C.No.573/2015 in LP No.18/2025 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Attingal is quashed. The Crl. M.C. is allowed.