B. K. RATHI, J. 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 Judi cial 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 op posite 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: 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 ad journment 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 com promised on 27-3-1999. That parties ap peared before him on that date and agreed that it is impossible to continue the mar riage and they further agreed to take divorce. It was agreed that Yogesh, op posite 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 mat ter has been compounded. He further ob served that after the compromise the ap plicant 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 further ob served that after the compromise the ap plicant 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. 4. It is contended by the learned coun sel for the applicant that entire facts incor porated 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. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant also contended that the conduct of the C. J. M. shows that he was interested in the case and for that reason he has mentioned the entire false facts. It is alleged that opposite party No. 4 is the husband and opposite party No. 5 is father-in-law of the victim. The bail application of opposite party No. 5, father-in-law was rejected by the Magistrate and he was granted bail by the Sessions Judge in February, 1999. Thereafter party No. 4, the husband of the victim appeared before opposite party No. 2, who took charge of the Court of the CJ. M. on 26-3-1999. He was released on bail by opposite party No. 2 on that very day. It is contended that it is very surprising that the Magistrate refused the bail to the father-in-law which was granted by the Court of Sessions, but the husband was enlarged on bail on the day he surrendered in the Court by the opposite party No. 2. 6. It is also contended that the charge-sheet was submitted on 2- 4-1999 and ac cused were summoned for 5-4-1999. There after another date fixed was 12-4-1999. Ac cused appeared on 12-4-1999 and charges were framed on that very date and 20-4-1999 was fixed for evidence. No summons were served on witnesses and witnesses did not appear on 22-4-1999. 6. It is also contended that the charge-sheet was submitted on 2- 4-1999 and ac cused were summoned for 5-4-1999. There after another date fixed was 12-4-1999. Ac cused appeared on 12-4-1999 and charges were framed on that very date and 20-4-1999 was fixed for evidence. No summons were served on witnesses and witnesses did not appear on 22-4-1999. Therefore, on that the case was again fixed for evidence on 22-4-1999. Thereafter the case has been fixed for evidence on 28-4-1999 and again on 4-5- 1999 was fixed for evidence and bailable warrants were issued. It is contended that this unusual haste was shown by opposite party No. 2 in the trial of the case so that he may dispose of the case himself. It is further alleged thatlarge number of cases weekending in the Court of CJ. M. Mathura in which dates for evidence are fixed after several months. That this show malafide conduct of the opposite party No. 2. 7. The opposite parties No. 4 to 8 has opposed the petition and alleged that the entire version mentioned in the order dated 4-5-1999 is correct and in fact Rs. 4 lacs were paid by opposite parties. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 2 lacs were taken as a loan Annexure No. 3, which is receipt; and Rs. 2 lacs were drawn from the account books. However, the account books does not show that Rs. 2 lacs were drawn for the purpose of payment to the applicant. The receipt, Annexure No. 3 to the counter- af fidavit is unstamped and even does not bear revenue stamp. 8. It may also be contended that a sum of Rs. 4 lacs is alleged to have been paid in cash. There is no writing regarding the payment of amount nor there is any writing regarding the compromise. However, the question whether the amount of Rs. 4 lacs were paid or not is to be decided by the Court after the evidence and it is not proper for me to record any finding on this point without opportunity to the parties producing evidence. The scope of this peti tion is limited only to the extent whether the entire order of that date, as prayed is liable to be quashed. 9. The opposite party No. 2 also filed counter-affidavit, in which he has sup ported the facts mentioned in the order sheet. The scope of this peti tion is limited only to the extent whether the entire order of that date, as prayed is liable to be quashed. 9. The opposite party No. 2 also filed counter-affidavit, in which he has sup ported the facts mentioned in the order sheet. However, during arguments learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, Sir Sunil Ambwani has clearly stated that he does not oppose the petition. His arguments are two fold. The first is that the judicial officers should not be impleaded as party to the proceedings and he has been unneces sarily harassed for which he should be properly compensated. The other conten tion is that there is presumption regarding the correctness of the Judges notes and it cannot be challenged in the petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. This argument has also been adopted by the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 4 to 8. 10. Regarding the first argument Sri Sunil Ambwani, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3, has referred to the case of Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others, AIR 1999 SC 976 . The reliance has been placed on following observation of paragraph No. 14 of the judgment which is as follows: "before parting with his case it is necessary for us to point out one aspect of the matter which is rather disturbing. In the writ petition filed in the High Court as well as the Special Leave Petition filed in this Court, the District Judge, Gorakhpur and the IVth Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gorakhpur are shown as respondents and in the Special Leave Petition they are shown as contesting respondents. There was no necessity for impleading the judi cial officers who disposed of the matter in a civil proceeding when the writ petition was filed in the High Court; nor is there any justification for impleading them as parties in the Special Leave Petition and describing them as contesting respondents. We do not approve of the course adopted by the petitioner which would cause unnecessary disturbance to the functions of the concerned judicial officers. They cannot be in any way equated to the officials of the Govern ment. We do not approve of the course adopted by the petitioner which would cause unnecessary disturbance to the functions of the concerned judicial officers. They cannot be in any way equated to the officials of the Govern ment. It is high time that the practice of im pleading judicial officers disposing of civil proceedings as parties to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Spe cial Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was stopped. We are strongly deprecating such a practice. " 11. It may be mentioned that this observation was made by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal. The present are proceed ing under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , in which request has been made to quash the order of a judicial officer on the ground that incorrect facts has been incorporated by him and the order is malafide. In the present case the petition is not based on the facts on the record of the case. On the other hand, the order has been passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate on the facts in his personal knowledge which does not form part of the record. As these facts mentioned by the Presiding Officer from the personal knowledge have been chal lenged, and the Presiding Officer has men tioned certain facts beyond the record on personal knowledge, therefore, it was not only proper but was necessary to implead him as party so that he may have oppor tunity to support or deny the facts and to explain that there is no malafide on his part. In this case in the order sheet it has also been mentioned that the parties are relatives of another judicial officer posted in the same district and therefore, it was also necessary to call that officer to ascer tain the fact whether the parties are related to him or not. In the circumstances the above observation of the Honble Supreme Court is of no help and the of ficers were rightly impleaded in this peti tion. The officers are not entitled to any compensation. 12. The last argument of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the Judges notes should be presumed as cor rect and they cannot be challenged under Section 482 Cr. P. C. In support of the argu ment of the learned counsel for the op posite party Nos. The officers are not entitled to any compensation. 12. The last argument of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the Judges notes should be presumed as cor rect and they cannot be challenged under Section 482 Cr. P. C. In support of the argu ment of the learned counsel for the op posite party Nos. 3 and 4 to 8 has referred to the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayakand another, 1982 (19) ACC 78 (SC) (Sum ). It was held by the Honble Supreme Court that Judges record is conclusive. Neither lawyer nor litigant may claim to contradict it, except before the Judge himself, but nowhere else (Paragraph No. 8 ). Prior to this conclusion the observations made in paragraph No. 4 of the judgment are relevant which are reproduced below: "we are afraid that we cannot launch into an enquiry as to what transpired in the High Court, (emphasis given by me ). It is simply not done. Public policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are un questionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. "judg ments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation. " We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judg ment, as to what transpired in Court (emphasis given by me ). We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judg ment of the Court, (emphasis given by me) are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judg ment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. That is the only way to have the record corrected. " 13. The Honble Supreme Court has clearly said that no enquiry can be con ducted regarding the fact as to what transpired in the Court. However, it does not say that if the Judge record any fact which did not transpire in the Court and had took place sometime before it is also conclusive and cannot be challenged in any other Court. However, the observation was made in the order dated 4-5-1999 as to what transpired between the parties on 27-3-1999 outside the Court. 27-3-1999 was also not the date fixed in the case and what is mentioned in the order sheet had not transpired in the matter at the hearing in the Court. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the observation cannot be said to be conclusive, nor it can be accepted that it cannot be challenged in this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. The Judges certainly have power to record as to what transpired in the Court and that is con clusive. However, if the Judge records a fact which transpired outside the Court on some other day it cannot be conclusive and can always be contradicted by the parties. If it is also taken as conclusive, the conse quences will be grave. This can be ex plained by a simple example. If a Judge record in the order sheet that a person met him in the market and offered him bribe on some previous day, could this statement of the order sheet can be conclusive? And it could be held that the person mentioned in the order sheet has committed the offence of giving bribe? The answer will certainly be no and the person will be entitled to contradict this observation of the Judge recorded in the order sheet. Therefore, argument that the order is conclusive can not be accepted. 14. There is no supporting evidence that Rs. 4 lacs were paid. There is also no reason for recording all those facts in the order sheet dated 4-5-1999. Therefore, argument that the order is conclusive can not be accepted. 14. There is no supporting evidence that Rs. 4 lacs were paid. There is also no reason for recording all those facts in the order sheet dated 4-5-1999. Apart from this the officer is also guilty of gross mis conduct for three reasons; firstly, that if he was an arbitrator in the compromise be tween the parties outside the Court and had personal knowledge regarding the facts, he should have not taken up the case and should have transferred it to some other competent Court, secondly, the Presiding Officer is also guilty of miscon duct in making an attempt to get a matter compounded out of the Court which law has made not compoundable and lastly for acting on the recommendation of another judicial officer in a judicial matter before him and not reporting the matter for ac tion against that officer. 15. In view of the above discussions the petition is allowed and the entire order dated 4-5-1999, State v. Yogesh and others, is quashed except in respect of fixing the date. However, it may be clarified that neither I have judged nor expressed any opinion as to whether Rs. 4 lacs were paid or not. If this question is agitated before any Court, it shall be decided on the basis of evidence adduced not being influenced by any observation made by me in this judgment. However, any observation in this regard made in the order sheet dated 4-5-1999 above which have been quashed shall not be deemed to be the evidence regarding the payment of Rs. 4 lacs. Petition allowed. .