Introduction:

In Rajesh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4791 of 2025), the Allahabad High Court, through a Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, delivered a significant ruling on the interpretation of the term “victim” and “legal heir” under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that in determining who qualifies as a “legal heir” entitled to pursue remedies in criminal proceedings, a “closest legal heir test” must be applied, under which the wife of the deceased unquestionably outshines an uncle. The ruling arose from writ petitions filed by the uncle of a deceased person seeking transfer of investigation from the State police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a murder case. The High Court dismissed the petitions on the ground of lack of locus standi, holding that the uncle neither qualified as a “victim” nor as a “legal heir” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) CrPC when the wife of the deceased was alive and actively pursuing remedies. The judgment is notable for bringing conceptual clarity to victim jurisprudence, reinforcing the primacy of immediate family members, and preventing competing claims that may derail the administration of criminal justice.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, who was the uncle of the deceased Ajeet Singh, approached the Allahabad High Court through writ petitions seeking transfer of investigation from the local police and Special Task Force (STF) to the CBI, alleging that the investigation was compromised due to the influence of powerful individuals. It was argued that Ajeet Singh had been murdered in 2021 and that multiple FIRs were registered, including one involving allegations against a senior journalist and other influential persons for possession of a secret document allegedly obtained through illegal means. The petitioner contended that the involvement of influential personalities, including a former Member of Parliament, rendered the investigation biased and unfair, thereby necessitating a CBI probe. He asserted that being a close family member who was deeply invested in securing justice for the deceased, he had the right to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. He further argued that mere technical objections regarding locus standi should not defeat the larger cause of justice, particularly when serious allegations of influence and manipulation of investigation were raised.

On the other hand, the State and the private respondents strongly opposed the maintainability of the writ petitions. They challenged the locus standi of the petitioner at the threshold, contending that under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, the term “victim” includes the legal heir of the deceased, and in the present case, the wife of the deceased was the closest and primary legal heir. It was pointed out that the wife had already filed similar writ petitions seeking CBI investigation, which were dismissed by the High Court, later remanded by the Supreme Court, and ultimately withdrawn. The Court was also informed that the uncle’s application for impleadment in the wife’s writ petition had earlier been rejected, and that rejection had attained finality. The respondents argued that the petitioner was attempting to re-agitate identical issues through the backdoor, without challenging the charge-sheets and without any new material. It was further contended that an uncle does not fall within the definition of “near relative” under the CrPC, nor within the category of “legal representative” as understood under the Civil Procedure Code and the Hindu Succession Act. Allowing such distant relatives to pursue criminal remedies, it was argued, would open floodgates of litigation and undermine the orderly administration of criminal justice.

Court’s Judgement:

The Allahabad High Court, after an elaborate examination of statutory provisions and factual background, dismissed the writ petitions and laid down an important principle termed as the “closest legal heir test.” The Court began by analysing Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, which defines a “victim” as a person who has suffered loss or injury due to the offence and includes his or her guardian or legal heir. Noting that the statute does not define who a “legal heir” is, the Court undertook a purposive interpretation to prevent ambiguity and conflict in criminal proceedings. The Bench observed that criminal law primarily treats offences as crimes against society, and while victims’ rights are recognised, the law cannot permit multiple relatives of varying degrees to simultaneously claim victim status and pursue parallel remedies.

The Court reasoned that when determining who qualifies as a legal heir for the purpose of pursuing criminal remedies, the closest and most proximate heir must outshine the next closer heir. Applying this principle, the Court unequivocally held that a wife stands on a much higher pedestal of proximity and legal recognition than an uncle. It referred to the explanation under Section 394 CrPC, where “near relative” is confined to parents, spouse, lineal descendants, brothers, and sisters, and contrasted this with the concept of “legal representative” under Section 320(4)(b) CrPC, which draws from the definition under Section 2(11) of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court further brought into focus the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, noting that under both Class I and Class II heirs, an uncle is a distant relative and does not enjoy precedence over the spouse.

The Bench categorically held that even if the petitioner was emotionally close to the deceased, emotional proximity cannot override legal proximity. The wife, being the closest legal heir, had already availed remedies up to the Supreme Court, and in the absence of any No Objection Certificate or authorisation from her, the uncle could not maintain independent writ petitions. The Court also found that the prayers were stale, no new material of sterling quality had been placed on record, and the apprehension of influence over the investigation was speculative. It reiterated that transfer of investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only when compelling circumstances or fresh evidence justify such intervention. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner did not qualify as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC, lacked locus standi, and was not entitled to seek transfer of investigation. The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed, firmly establishing that the wife outshines the uncle in the closest legal heir test.