Uncle Is Far Away Or Distant Relative; Can’t Be Placed Under "Near Relative" In Terms Of CrPC: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Definition Of Legal Heir

​The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held, “This Court finds that there is no definition of ‘legal heir’ under the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, there are stray mention of words like ‘near relative’,‘legal representative’ in the said code, which can be construed to have cognate meaning to ‘legal heir.’ As far as the use of word ‘near relative’ is concerned, it has been mentioned under Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to abatement of appeals. Here also, this Court finds that in the explanation appended to the said Section, ‘near relative’ has been given to mean a parent, spouse, lineal descendant, brother or sister. Further, as far as ‘legal representative’ is concerned, the same has been used under Section 320(4) (b) relating to compounding of offences, wherein it says ‘legal representative’ shall mean to be a person, as defined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This Court finds that as per Section 2 (11) of the Civil Procedure Code, defines ‘legal representative’ to be a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, which brings the schedule incorporated as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 appended to the said Act relating to ‘Class-I’ and ‘Class-II’ heir into limelight. Interestingly, in both the cases, this Court finds that Uncle is a far away and/or distant relative and in a way does not find any place both under the meaning of the word ‘near relative’ or ‘legal representative’ mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Advocate Kapil Misra appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, whereas G.A. VK Singh appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Petitioner filed two writ petitions raising the same issue as to how the main accused may have influenced the investigating agency in the first case, i.e. Special Task Force (‘STF’) as according to him, the main accused with the help of one Journalist has obtained certain secret and/ or confidential documents from the STF by adopting illegal means while the investigation in the first case was being transferred from local police to STF, therefore, he has prayed for transfer of the investigation in both the cases to Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’).

Contention of the parties

One of the petitioners, in another writ petition, contended that an influential former Member of Parliament was allegedly involved in her husband's murder and that the current investigation—already moved from local police to the STF—was ineffective. Expressing a deep apprehension that the STF might deliberately protect the high-profile suspect by either exonerating him or reducing the charges to minor offences, the Petitioner argued that only an independent probe by the CBI could ensure an impartial and thorough investigation.

The opposite party raised the issue regarding the maintainability of the petitions on the basis of the locus standi of the Petitioner. It was submitted that the Petitioner was neither the informant nor the complainant, but he is the uncle of one of the deceased.

Observations of the Court

“This Court is unable to comprehend as to what is the locus of the present petitioner to file the present writ petition, when he is neither the “victim” in view of Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C. nor is a person aggrieved in any manner or a legal heir. Admittedly, The petitioner is the uncle of the deceased late Ajeet Singh and even if the degree of closeness of relation of the present petitioner with the deceased is considered, the wife is the immediate victim and aggrieved, so the uncle cannot be placed above her. According to this Court, no doubt a restrictive meaning ought not to be given to the meaning of ‘legal heir’ as per Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C., however, keeping in view the nature of criminal proceedings and the limited right available even to a complainant, once the criminal machinery has been set into motion, the meaning of “victim” has to be given a purposeful interpretation.”, the Court said.

The Court devised a mechanism to determine whether a particular person would come within the definition of ‘legal heir’ in terms of Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C. or not, and which may be called the ‘closest legal heir’.

The Court said, “According to the ‘closest legal heir test’, the closest or the proximate legal heir of the victim must outshine the next closer legal heir because the administration of justice does not warrant any dispute even on determining as to who would be the ‘legal heir’ to pursue the grievance of a victim, in pursuing a criminal case, which is fundamentally construed to be an offence against the society and therefore, it is the primary duty of the State to protect the right and interest of the victim.”

The Court observed that the petitioner, who is the uncle of the deceased, may not come within the purview of a victim or a legal heir of the deceased, as the wife outshines the uncle in the ‘closest legal heir test’ to be considered as a legal heir in view of Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that the prayer of ‘transfer of investigation to the CBI is stale and technically infructuous as the investigation has not only started but stands already completed in both the FIRs, and even trial has been commenced.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petitions.

Cause Title: Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and others [Neutral Citation:2025:AHC-LKO:85430-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Kapil Misra and Ashish Kumar Singh

Respondents: G.A. VK Singh, Advocates Rao Narender Singh, Anurag Kumar Singh and Naved Ali

Click here to read/download the Judgment