Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Ramesh M. Gandhi vs A. Sendilkumar on 8 August, 2025
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 617 of 2019)
RAMESH M. GANDHI ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
A. SENDILKUMAR & ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The accused-appellant is before us seeking
compounding of offences punishable u/s
409/420/465/468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 1, for
which he was convicted by the Ld. JMFC-II, Davangere
and sentenced to three years simple imprisonment.
The said conviction and sentence was upheld by the
Ld. I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Davangere
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KANCHAN CHOUHAN
as well as by the High Court of Karnataka at
Date: 2025.08.11
17:21:39 IST
Reason:
1 For short, ‘IPC’.
2
Bengaluru.
3. The facts in brief are that on 28.03.2001, the
respondent-complainant had filed a private complaint
u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 2
making allegations against the accused-appellant that
he was carrying on a business as a stock broker under
the name and style of M/s Vardhaman Shares &
Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Davangere Shares &
Securities Pvt. Ltd. In September, 1998, the
respondent gave Rs.1,45,000/- to the accused-
appellant for investment in shares and stocks but
accused-appellant did not transfer share certificates to
his name. Hence, he filed a complaint. After the
investigation was done, a negative report came to be
filed stating that the allegations are of civil nature.
4. On a protest petition being filed by the
respondent, the Ld. JMFC took the cognizance of the
offences u/s 409/420/465/468 of the IPC and after
conducting trial, convicted the accused-appellant
under the said sections and sentenced him to suffer 3
years’ simple imprisonment, by holding that the
2 For short, ‘CrPC’.
3
certificates issued by the broker lacked essential
requirements, such as the SEBI seal and the broker’s
registration number and hence, the same were not in
accordance with the law. The Ld. JMFC further
observed that every broker and sub-broker must
possess a certificate issued by SEBI for the sale or
purchase of any securities, but no such registration
certificate has been produced. Lastly, the Ld. JMFC
also observed that the certificates do not bear the
signature of the complainant, and hence, convicted the
accused-appellant.
5. Challenging the order of conviction and sentence,
the accused-appellant filed a Criminal Appeal bearing
No. 49/2007 before the I Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Davangere, which came to be dismissed, and
the findings of Ld. JMFC were confirmed.
6. Assailing the order of Ld. I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, the accused filed a Criminal Revision
Petition bearing No. 321/2010 before the High Court of
Karnataka, which also came to be dismissed vide the
impugned order dated 20.02.2017, with an observation
that the documents which were issued by the accused-
4
appellant were not original documents and they were
generated by the computer and further that there was
no signature of the main broker, no registered number
and no name of the broker was mentioned, and hence
the charges were squarely proved.
7. After the dismissal of the criminal revision
petition, on 28.02.2017, the parties filed a joint
application before the High Court for compounding the
offences. The High Court having expressed its doubt
about the maintainability of the same, the abovesaid
application came to be withdrawn by the parties.
Hence, the accused-appellant has come up before us in
this appeal.
8. Thereafter, on 17.05.2024, the parties submitted
before this Court that they had compromised the
matter and wanted the matter to be disposed of
accordingly. Hence, this Court had directed both the
parties to file their affidavits. The affidavit of appellant
Ramesh M. Gandhi is dated 06.05.2024, wherein he
has submitted that he had caused a loss of Rs.
1,45,000/- to the respondent by committing certain
irregularities, however, he had paid Rs. 25,00,000/- to
5
the respondent-complainant by way of demand drafts
bearing Nos. 871227 and 871228 dated 27.02.2017
and by way of cheque bearing No. 147458 dated
27.02.2017.
9. The affidavit of respondent A. Sendilkumar is filed
on 14.10.2024 wherein he has stated that after the
dismissal of the criminal revision petition by the High
Court, the appellant and the respondent have amicably
settled the matter. He has further deposed that he has
received a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- from the appellant.
He has reiterated that the matter has been
compromised and that the settlement was genuine,
and hence the offence be compounded.
10. We have heard the counsels for the parties and
have also perused the record.
11. The conviction of the accused-appellant was u/s
409/420/465/468 of the IPC. Out of all of these
offences, only Section 420 IPC is a compoundable
offence, that too with the leave of the Court, as per
Section 320 CrPC. The rest of the offences, i.e.,
S.409/465/468 IPC are non-compoundable offences.
12. Law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this
6
Court that even where the offences are non-
compoundable and beyond the purview of Section 320
CrPC, this Court in a suitable case can quash the
proceedings by exercising the powers conferred by way
of Article 142 of the Constitution of India. This Court
in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,3 after
taking note of various earlier decisions, summarized
the legal position governing the powers of the High
Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or
complaint in its inherent jurisdiction, observing as
below: –
“61. …But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour
stand on a different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to
dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong
is basically private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim,
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak
and continuation of the criminal case would put
the accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not3 (2012) 10 SCC 303.
7
quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the
victim. In other words, the High Court must
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to
the interest of justice to continue with the criminal
proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process
of law despite settlement and compromise between
the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the
criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to
the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash
the criminal proceeding.”
13. After going through the facts of this case,
particularly that the respondent-complainant has
received the money to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- and
that the matter has been amicably settled between the
parties, and further that the said dispute is purely
between two private parties and it would not affect the
society at large, this Court is of the view that the
litigation should be put to quietus and that nothing
fruitful would emerge by continuing this proceeding
any longer.
14. Having regard to the facts of the case and the
amicable settlement arrived at between the parties
outside the Court, which is evidenced through the
8
affidavits filed before us, we allow the appeal and
quash the order of conviction.
15. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
16. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.
….……………………J.
(ARAVIND KUMAR)
……………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 08, 2025.
9
ITEM NO.45 COURT NO.17 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 617/2019
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 20-02-2017 in CRLRP No. 321/2010 passed by
the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru]
RAMESH M. GANDHI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
A. SENDILKUMAR & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 08-08-2025 This petition was called on for
hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajesh Mahale, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pai Amit, AOR
Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Harisha S.r., AOR
Ms. Anuradha Bhat, Adv.
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the
following
O R D E R
1. Leave Granted.
2. The Appeal is disposed of, in terms of signed
10
order.
3. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(KANCHAN CHOUHAN) (AVGV RAMU) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Signed Order is placed on the file.]