AJAY KAPUR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned orders, are, a sequel, to, an application preferred by the complainant/respondent herein, before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned. Through, the application moved before the learned Magistrate concerned, a prayer was made for hence substituting, in the apposite complaint, the name of one Ajay Kapur, in place of Mr. A.L. Kapur. The necessity for casting the aforesaid application, before the learned Magistrate concerned, was a sequel, of this Court, proceeding, to, in Cr.MMO No. 275 of 2017, make an order, for, deletion in the apposite complaint, the name of, one, A.L. Kapur.

(2.) It appears that in the garb of the orders pronounced upon the aforesaid Cr.MMO No.275 of 2017, the application at hand, was, constituted by the complainant/respondent, before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nalagarh. Even if assumingly, this Court while making a pronouncement, upon, the aforesaid Cr.MMO, had ordered for the deletion, in the apposite complaint, the name of one A.L. Kapur, and with the application at hand, being subsequently cast, may yet give some leverage to the respondent/complainant, to make an espousal, (a) that the orders impugned before this Court prima facie</i>, hence, not acquiring any stain of any illegality. However, for making, a, complete determination with respect to illegality, if any, ingraining, the orders impugned before this Court, dehors the factum of this Court recording, the aforesaid order upon Cr.MMO No. 275 of 2017, it is also imperative to adjudge, (b) whether in garb thereof, the complainant/respondent, yet omitting to beget compliance vis-a-vis the apposite statutory provisions, (c) and, irrespective of the factum of the application, being purportedly not cast within the domain, of the apposite statutory provisions appertaining vis-a-vis the required purpose.

(3.) A reading of the application, unfolds qua though, it concerting to seek, substitution, in the apposite application, of one Ajay Kapur instead of A.L. Kapur, (i) thereupon, the aforesaid simplicitor prayer, may hence be invested with an aura of legality, even if it is purportedly rested, upon, the orders pronounced by this court in Cr.MMO No. 275 of 2017, only upon evident satiation, being meted vis-a-vis the mandate of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., (ii) conspicuously, when the aforesaid application is apparently, cast within the domain of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., (iii) reiteratedly, hence, the validity(ies) , of, orders pronounced thereon, is to be tested, especially, on anvil of evident compliance(s) being begotten vis-a-vis the mandate(s) enshrined therein. Sequel, of the aforesaid inference(s) , is, of this Court being hence enjoined, to, extract the relevant provisions, borne in Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-