RAM PRATAP SINGH Vs. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 482 Crimial 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 Vs. 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 Trivedi learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 Sri V.C. 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 :

(3.) 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.