B.K.RATHI, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the impugned order dated 4-5-1999 passed by opposite party No. 2, the then Chief Judi­cial Magistrate, Mathura in case No. 1054/1 of 1999, State v. Yogesh and others, except in respect of fixing the date in the above mentioned criminal case i.e. 2-7-1999.
(2.) I have heard Sri U.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Ambwani, learned counsel for the op­posite party No. 2, Sri Anoop THveidi, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3, Sri VC. Tiwari learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 4 to 8 and the learned A.G. A. The facts giving rise to this petition in brief are as follows: The applicant is complainant in Case No. 1054/1 of 1999 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act which is pending in the Court of C.J.M. Mathura. In that case one date fixed was 4-5-1999 which was for evidence. The prosecution moved an application for ad­journment and for issuing non-bailable warrants of arrest of the witnesses. That application was rejected by C.J.M. Mathura. He also observed that the parties are relatives of Sri Amarpal Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, opposite party No. 3 and on his request he got the matter com­promised on 27-3-1999. That parties ap­peared before him on that date and agreed that it is impossible to continue the mar­riage and they further agreed to take divorce. It was agreed that Yogesh, op­posite party No. 4 will pay a sum of Rs. 4 lacs to his wife and in his presence Rs. 4 lacs were paid on 27-3-1999 by Sri Rampal Singh, opposite party No. 5 in his presence. It was also agreed that the compromise shall be filed as and when the charge-sheet is received. That money was paid in his presence and the case be fixed on priority. Therefore, there is no question of issue of warrants against the witnesses as the mat­ter has been compounded. He further ob­served that after the compromise the ap­plicant and his daughter has turned out to be dishonest and want to misappropriate a sum of Rs. 4 lacs paid in his presence. That therefore, there is no justification of his hearing this case. He, therefore, fixed the case for hearing after two months.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned coun­sel for the applicant that entire facts incor­porated in the order sheet are totally false. That no compromise took place nor a sum of Rs. 4 lacs were paid. That the opposite party No. 3, Amarpal Singh is also Judicial Magistrate posted at Mathura. He was im-pleaded as party and notice was issued to him. He has filed affidavit that it is totally false that parties are related to him. He further alleged that parties are not even known to him and he never asked opposite party No. 2, C.J.M. Mathura to get the matter compounded.;