The Single Judge rejected the petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing an impugned order, holding that the petitioner lacks locus standi as he was not expressly named and no charge-sheet had been filed against him.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRLMC No. 1668 of 2019
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions, Judge, Balliguda in CT Case No. 22 of 2018, wherein cognizance has been taken allowing continuance of proceeding against the petitioner.
It appears that the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and some persons who are arrayed as an accused are proceeded with. The petitioner, who is nowhere in the picture now, inasmuch as no charge-sheet has not been filed against the petitioner, has come to challenge the same. In such premises, this Court finds that the petitioner is not at all aggrieved by the aforesaid order and as such he has no locus-standi to challenge the same. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and stands rejected.
However, rejection of this order shall not stand on the way of the petitioner to challenge the proceeding against him, if at all he is proceeded with in connection with the aforesaid case without any incriminating materials against him.
With the aforesaid order, this CRLMC stands disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
………………….. S. Pujahari, J.
AKP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge an impugned order allowing continuance of proceedings against him when no charge-sheet has been filed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
The State
S. Pujahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
