CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2009 › Raja Ram Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Raja Ram Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Supreme Court of India · 24 April 2009 · [2009] 7 S.C.R. 84

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
24 April 2009
Case no.
Crl.A. No. 864 of 2009
Reported as
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 84
Result
Disposed of
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 864 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3447 of 2008)

RAJA RAM KASHYAP & ORS.
...
Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
...
Respondent(s)

J U DG MENT

Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

Leave granted.

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 sub-section

(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.

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

Offence
Section Person by whom

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

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.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

...................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) ....................J. ((ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi,
April 24, 2009.

Ask CaseMinister about Raja Ram Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp