TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners had locus standi to seek quashing of the FIR when they were not accused in it; (ii) Whether the prayer for release of the truck and goods could be entertained in writ jurisdiction when a statutory remedy for custody of vehicle and goods was available.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioners had locus standi to seek quashing of the FIR when they were not accused in it.
Analysis: The challenge to the FIR was by entities who were not arrayed as accused in the criminal case. In such circumstances, a person not named as an accused cannot ordinarily maintain a prayer to quash the FIR on merits. The absence of direct criminal accusation deprived the petitioners of the necessary standing to seek that relief.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners. They had no locus standi to seek quashing of the FIR.
Issue (ii): Whether the prayer for release of the truck and goods could be entertained in writ jurisdiction when a statutory remedy for custody of vehicle and goods was available.
Analysis: For custody and release of the seized vehicle and goods, the proper course was to move the competent criminal court under the provisions governing custody of property. Where such an efficacious statutory remedy exists, writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for direct adjudication of the custody prayer. Liberty was therefore preserved to pursue the statutory remedy without being influenced by the earlier rejection of a similar application filed by the driver.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners. The custody prayer was not entertained in writ jurisdiction and the petitioners were relegated to the statutory remedy.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on both prayers, with liberty reserved to seek custody of the vehicle and goods before the competent court in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not entertain a prayer for quashing at the instance of a person not arrayed as an accused, and where a specific statutory remedy exists for custody of seized property, the party must pursue that remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
