High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCrl.M.C allowed; final report and further proce...

Naveen Gopal v. State of Kerala and Sreenath and Jugal Kishore

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C NO.1607 OF 2025
Neutral Citation:2025:KER:30762

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V.G. Arun
Judgment Date
2025-03-24
Court Decision / Holding
The Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 (final report) and all further proceedings in Crime No.1646/2024 registered at Muvattupuzha Police Station, now pending as CP No.4/2025 before the JMFC-I, Muvattupuzha, against the 3rd respondent are quashed.
Final Disposition
Crl.M.C allowed; final report and further proceedings quashed against 3rd respondent.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Naveen Gopal

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Sreenath
  • Jugal Kishore

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Mithun P.
  • • Merin Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Harishma P. Thampi
  • • S. Rajeev
  • • V. Vinay
  • • M. S. Aneer
  • • Anil Kumar C.R.
  • • Sarath K.P.
  • • K.S. Kiran Krishnan
  • • Dipa V.
  • • PP M.C. Ashi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.M.C. No.1607 of 2025) before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, arising from Crime No.1646/2024 registered at Muvattupuzha Police Station. The petitioner, Naveen Gopal, injured in the incident of 22.08.2024, seeks quashing of the final report in the case now pending as CP No.4/2025 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Muvattupuzha. The prosecution asserts that the offence involves serious considerations under Section 109(1) of the BNS and Section 27(1) r/w Section 5(1) of the Arms Act, and that resolution of the dispute through settlement does not ordinarily warrant quashing. The petitioner claims that the 3rd respondent, a close relative, fired accidentally while handling a licensed pistol; the injury was sustained, and an affidavit narrating true facts was admitted by the Sessions Court during bail. The settlement between the parties, absence of public interest, and the fact that the case hinges on an accidental firing support a relief, as argued by the petitioner. The State counters that the offences are grave and settlement should not derail the proceedings. The court relies on Naushey Ali v. State of U.P and the decisions in Madan Mohan Abbot and Gian Singh to justify relief. The Court eventually allows the Crl.M.C, quashing the final report and all further proceedings against the 3rd respondent.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 109(1) of the BNSSection 27(1) r/w Section 5(1) of the Arms ActSection 307 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the injured petitioner, narrating facts via affidavit, has stated that the incident occurred due to accidental firing while the 3rd respondent handled a licensed pistol. The final report was filed after investigation, and the matter is pending as CP 4/2025 before the JMFC. Given the absence of public interest and the close familial relation between the parties, there is no likelihood of conviction; the Sessions Court had already considered the affidavit while granting bail. Relying on Naushey Ali v. State of U.P (2025 KLT OnLine 1262) and on Madan Mohan Abbot and Gian Singh, the petition argues that a settlement should warrant quashing under these circumstances. The relief is sought to prevent abuse of process and unnecessary continuation of proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through counsel, contends that the offences alleged (including 109(1) of the BNS) are serious, and ordinarily such proceedings should not be quashed despite settlements. It emphasizes that merely because a settlement exists does not automatically extinguish the seriousness of the offences. The Public Prosecutor submits that the possibility of abuse of process must be guarded against, and the final report should not be quashed lightly. However, the State also recognizes the cited Supreme Court authorities in given circumstances but argues that the court must weigh public interest and the likelihood of conviction before granting relief.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Naushey Ali v. State of U.P2025 KLT OnLine 1262 (SC)PositiveCited to support the principle that a settlement between parties may justify quashing even where a Section 307 IPC mention exists.
Madan Mohan Abbot v State of Punjab(2008) 4 SCC 582PositiveCited as authority that settlement can lead to quashing where appropriate to prevent abuse of process.
Gian Singh v State of Punjab and Another(2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveCited for the proposition that Courts may grant relief in settlement in certain serious offence contexts.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Naveen Gopal v. State of Kerala and Sreenath and Jugal Kishore and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` 2025:KER:30762 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN`** ``` MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ## **`CRL.MC NO. 1607 OF 2025`** ``` CRIME NO.1646/2024 OF Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam ``` ``` IN CP NO.4 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I ``` ## **`MUVATTUPUZHA`** ## **`PETITIONER/INJURED:`** ``` NAVEEN GOPAL AGED 29 YEARS S/O. GOPAL, SANGAMAM PADI, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686669 ``` ``` BY ADVS. MITHUN P. MERIN THOMAS ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031`** ## **`2 SREENATH`** ``` AGED 47 YEARS S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, MANGALATH HOUSE, SANGAMAM PADI, KADATHYKARA, VELOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686669 ``` ``` 3JUGAL KISHORE AGED 46 YEARS ``` ``` S/O. GOPINATHAN NAIR, MANGALATH, KADATHY EAST, MOOVATUPUZHA, VELOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - ``` ``` 2025:KER:30762 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Crl.M.C.No.1607 of 2025 ``` 2 ``` 686669 ``` ``` BY ADVS. HARISHMA.P.THAMPI S.RAJEEV V.VINAY(K/355/2009) M.S.ANEER(K/644/2013) ANILKUMAR C.R.(K/001190/2020) SARATH K.P.(K/001467/2021) K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN(K/3514/2022) DIPA V.(K/003785/2024) ``` ``` PP M.C.ASHI ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:30762 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Crl.M.C.No.1607 of 2025 ``` **==> picture [5 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> 3<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **ORDER** ## **Dated this the 24th day of March, 2025** Petitioner is the injured in Crime No.1646 of 2024 registered at the Muvattupuzha Police Station for offences punishable under Section 109(1) of the BNS and Section 27(1) r/w Section 5(1) of the Arms Act, now pending as C.P No.4 of 2025 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha. 2. The crime is registered on the allegation that at about 11:45 p.m on 22.08.2024, the accused, by reason of his enmity, shot the petitioner twice with a pistol, thereby causing serious injuries. 3. Learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the dispute, which led to the incident ``` 2025:KER:30762 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Crl.M.C.No.1607 of 2025 ``` 4 and registration of the crime, is amicably settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused/3[rd] respondent is a close relative of the petitioner. The 3[rd] respondent is in possession of a licensed pistol and the incident occurred when the shots were accidentally fired while the petitioner was inspecting the pistol out of curiosity. As the petitioner got seriously injured, he was rushed to the hospital and the First Information Statement was given by his uncle. By the time the petitioner recuperated, the final report in the crime was submitted in court. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted an affidavit narrating the true facts, which was taken into consideration by the Sessions Court while granting bail to the 3[rd] respondent. It is submitted that the entire issue having been resolved, ``` 2025:KER:30762 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Crl.M.C.No.1607 of 2025 ``` **==> picture [5 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** continuation of the proceedings against the 3[rd] respondent will amount to an abuse of process of court. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Police filed final report after completing the investigation and the matter is now pending as C.P.No.4 of 2025 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Muvattupuzha. It is contended that one of the offences alleged being under Section 109(1) of BNS, the prayer for quashing the proceedings cannot be allowed. 5. It is true that the alleged offences are serious in nature, and when there is allegation of commission of a heinous offence like Section 109(1) of BNS, the proceedings cannot be quashed ordinarily based on the settlement between the parties. Here it ``` 2025:KER:30762 ``` 6 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Crl.M.C.No.1607 of 2025 ``` is also pertinent to note the recent decision of the Apex Court in **Naushey Ali v. State of U.P** . [2025 KLT OnLine 1262 (SC)], wherein it is held that mere mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge sheet should not be the basis for adopting a hands-off approach by the court when parties come forward with a settlement. In the case at hand, the injured has stated on affidavit that he sustained the injuries due to the accidental firing of the pistol he was handling. It is also on record that the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent are close relatives and have resolved all disputes. Moreover, no public interest is involved in the matter. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction also. In view of the above factors and the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme ``` 2025:KER:30762 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Crl.M.C.No.1607 of 2025 ``` 7 Court in **Madan Mohan Abbot v State of Punjab** [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and **Gian Singh v State of Punjab and Another** [(2012) 10 SCC 303], there is no impediment in granting the relief. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A1 final report and all further proceedings in Crime No.1646 of 2024 registered at the Muvattupuzha Police Station, now pending as C.P No.4 of 2025 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, as against the 3[rd] respondent, is quashed. **Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** SSK/24/03 ``` 2025:KER:30762 ``` 8 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Crl.M.C.No.1607 of 2025 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1607/2025`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 1646/2024 OF MUVATUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, NOW PENDING AS C.P. NO 4/2025 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 19.12.2024 ``` - **`Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 1646/2024 OF MOOVATUPUZHA POLICE STATION DATED 23.8.2024`** - **`Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PETITIONER PRODUCED BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 10.09.2024`** - **`Annexure A4 NOTARIZED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.1.2025`** - **`RESPONDENT ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure R2(a)AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 27.01.2025 ``` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL ## **`TRUE COPY`** ``` P.A. TO JUDGE ```