Judge’s Considerations in Issuing a Decision Stating That the Indictment Is Null and Void: A Study in Tangerang District Court, Indonesia

This article examines the judge's considerations in the court in issuing an interlocutory ruling stating that the indictment is null and void where the reason is not regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code carried out by the judge based on the interpretation of the applicable legal provisions, and how to follow up on the handling of cases that have obtained an interlocutory decision from the judge declaring the indictment null and void where there are no provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the return of case files that has been fully disclosed to the investigator. This research is normative legal research with a legislative approach and a case approach. The results of the research are, First, the judge's consideration in issuing an interlocutory ruling that declares the indictment null and void because there has been a pretrial decision that cancels the suspect's status at the investigation stage conducted by the judge based on legal findings through a systematic legal interpretation method of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Second, the follow-up to the handling of cases that have received an interlocutory decision that cancels the indictment can still be amended to be submitted back to the trial, but for cases related to the improvement of the evidence used by the investigator in determining the suspect which is the authority of the investigator, the case cannot be returned to the investigator because there is no legal basis that regulates it in the Criminal Procedure Code. So that to provide legal certainty, the case can be stopped.