Chhattisgarh HC: Infirmity in Cheque Return Memo Won’t Render Entire Trial u/s 138 of NI Act a Nullit  ||  Delhi HC: Lawyers have Great Responsibility towards Resolving Matrimonial Disputes  ||  Pat. HC: Mental Disorder for Divorce Must be Such that Spouse Can’t be Expected to Live with Other  ||  Delhi HC: Can Dispense Personal Hearing Only if Assessee's Rectification Application Is Allowed  ||  J&K HC: Fact that Civil Remedy is Available for Breach of Contract No Ground to Quash Cr. Proceeding  ||  SC: Cannot Grant Bail for Offence under Sec. 447 of Companies Act Without Fulfilling Twin Conditions  ||  Supreme Court: Can Pass Judgment on Admission Made Outside the Pleadings  ||  SC: All Proceedings Related to Land Allotment for Bom. HC's New Complex Must be Heard by Bombay HC  ||  NCLAT: No Requirement of Opportunity of Being Heard at Stage of Report Submission u/s 99 of IBC  ||  J&K High Court Notifies Video Conferencing (Nyaya Shruti) Rules, 2025    

Amanullah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (12 Apr 2016)

Courts should be liberal in allowing third-party locus standi

MANU/SC/0403/2016

Criminal

Courts should be “liberal in allowing any third party” with a bona fide connection with the matter so long as it ‘advance[s] substantial justice’, the Supreme Court urged. However, such authority was to be with exercised with courts taking due care, it cautioned, to ensure that persons with personal grievances were not allowed to abuse the legal system, nor those who were unconnected with the matter. Rather than enumerate a list of persons who have locus standi, the court tendered that who all would have locus to maintain an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution would depend on the facts of each case.

The Court had heard the appeal against an order of the High Court quashing the cognisance order of the magistrate against a charge of murder. It concluded that the High Court’s decision was in error, on an appraisal of material placed before it. Witness testimony and evidence collected by the investigating officer was correctly considered by the CJM before taking cognisance.

Relevant : Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor MANU/SC/0053/2013 P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunanchalam MANU/SC/0083/1980 Section 482 CrPC Act

Tags : LOCUS STANDI   COGNIZANCE   THIRD PARTY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved