Introduction
The Allahabad High Court has delivered an important ruling on the interpretation of “closest legal heir” under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court clarified that a deceased person’s wife has priority over an uncle when claiming victim status or legal standing in criminal proceedings. The judgment brings clarity to who can approach courts on behalf of a deceased victim and prevents disputes among relatives over locus standi in criminal cases.
Facts of the Case
The case arose from the murder of Ajeet Singh in Uttar Pradesh. Multiple FIRs were registered in connection with the incident. One FIR named three accused persons for the murder, while another FIR involved allegations against a senior journalist and another individual for unlawful possession of confidential documents related to the case.
Following the murder, the uncle of the deceased approached the Allahabad High Court. He sought transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. He alleged that the accused persons had influence over the investigating agency and that a fair probe was not possible.
Earlier, the wife of the deceased had filed a similar petition before the High Court seeking a CBI investigation. That petition was dismissed. Later, after the Supreme Court remanded the matter, the wife chose to withdraw her petition.
The uncle then attempted to get himself impleaded in the proceedings. When that request was rejected, he approached the Supreme Court. The apex court permitted him to file a fresh writ petition before the High Court. This led to the core legal question. The court had to decide whether the uncle could be treated as the closest legal heir and therefore a “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.
What the Court Says
The High Court examined the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC. The provision includes a person who suffers harm due to an offence and also includes the victim’s guardian or legal heir. However, the law does not define who qualifies as the closest legal heir.
The court noted that other provisions of the CrPC use terms like “near relative” and “legal representative.” These terms generally refer to immediate family members such as parents, spouse, children or siblings. They do not normally extend to distant relatives like uncles when closer relations exist.
To resolve this gap, the court applied what it described as a “closest legal heir test.” Under this approach, the person with the nearest legal and relational proximity to the deceased must be preferred. The court held that the wife stands in a much closer legal relationship to the deceased than an uncle.
The bench ruled that even if the uncle shared emotional closeness or concern, that factor could not override the legal hierarchy of relationships. The wife clearly outranked the uncle in terms of proximity and legal standing. As a result, the uncle could not be treated as a victim or closest legal heir under Section 2(wa) CrPC.
The court further observed that if distant relatives were allowed to claim victim status despite the presence of immediate family members, criminal proceedings could become chaotic. Courts would then face competing claims, delaying justice and complicating investigations. The High Court also held that the uncle lacked locus standi to pursue the writ petition without express authorization from the wife. In the absence of a no-objection certificate or consent from her, the uncle could not maintain the petition.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Implications of the Ruling
This judgment provides much-needed clarity on the interpretation of “legal heir” in criminal law. It establishes that courts must prioritize the closest relational link when identifying who can act as a victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC.
The ruling limits the ability of distant relatives to independently approach courts when immediate family members are alive and legally competent. It also reinforces that authorization from the closest legal heir is essential if another relative wishes to act on behalf of the deceased.
The decision is likely to reduce unnecessary litigation over standing in criminal cases involving deceased victims. It ensures that victim rights remain structured, predictable and aligned with established family hierarchies.
