It was needless to emphasize that the requirement of Locus standi of a party' to litigation us mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specified remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.

Even if there are millions question questions of law to be deeply gone in to and examined in criminal case registered against specified accused persons, it was for him or them to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated at appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties either individually or under garb of Public Interest Litigation.

Ordinarily the aggrieved party which was affected by any order has the right to seek redress by questioning the legality, validity or correctness of the order, uncle such party is a minor,an insane person or was suffering from any other disability which law recognises as sufficient to permit another person e.g next friend to move the Court on his behalf.

It has not been proved as to how any legal rights or right protected has been invaded as to give a cause of action for the petitioner to move this Court for interference. It was not disputed that the property in respect of which action has been taken belongs to some one.

It was the assertion of the the petitioner that being his wife she has interest in the property. That even if correct perse does not clothe the petitioner locus standby to seek exercise of Power under section 482, Crpc. It was held, against an order of attachment of property of the accused, his wife has no locus standby to move the High Court for exercise of inherent powers.