Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAJA RAM KASHYAP & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Decided
24 April 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 84 · 2009 INSC 603
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 84, margin G

The only question raised is that since the parties have settled their dispute and want to compound the offence i.e Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'Act'), the court should have permit it to be in terms of subsection (2) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code'). The offences indicated in the table are compoundable and it is indicated as to who is the person by whom the offence may be compounded.

pp. 84–85, margin G

Sub-section 320 of the Code so far as relevant reads as follows:

p. 85, margin B

The offence punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned.

p. 85, margin B

Offence Section Person by whom offencee may be

p. 85, margin C

comgounded Criminal breach of trust, 406 The person to whom where the value of the hurt is caused property does not exceed {Two hundred rupees) Cheating and dishonestly 420 The owner of the inducing delivery of property. property or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security

p. 85, margin C

If the parties file necessary application for compounding in terms of the Section 320 of the Code, the concerned court will deal with the matter appropriately. The interim order passed by this court shall continue for a period of three months so that necessary steps can be taken.

p. 85, margin F

The appeal is disposed of accordingly . N.J. Appeal disposed of.

p. 85, margin F