# Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 750
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4791 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54841
- **Pages:** 14

## Text

_Characters 0–39,811 of 47,408. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39811 for what follows._

750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13. Coming to the fact of the
present case, it is not in dispute that such a
disputed or objectionable slogan "gustakhe-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda, sar tan se
juda" was used by the crowd of thousands
of people assembled at the instigation of
Maulana Taukir Raza and when police
stopped the crowd and informed that in
view of the enforcement of order under
Section 163 BNSS, they cannot assemble
and their assembly is unlawfull and also
requested not to assemble in Islamia Inter
College but the people started pelting stone,
throwing petrol bombs and firing which
resulted in injuries to many policemen and
they had also damaged public and private
property,
thereafter
several
persons
including the present applicant were
arrested from the spot.

14. There is sufficient material in
the case diary showing that the applicant
was part of an unlawful assembly which
not only raised objectionable slogans
challenging the authority of the Indian legal
system but also caused injuries to police
personnel and damaged public as well as
private property, which is nothing but an
offence against the State and he was
arrested from the spot. Therefore, this court
does not find any ground to release the
applicant on bail.

15. Accordingly, the bail application
of the applicant is rejected.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 750
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR
CHAUDHARY, J.
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4791 of 2025

Rajesh Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the petitioner, who is
neither the informant, nor the victim, nor the
closest legal heir of deceased within the
meaning of s. 2(wa) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, possesses the requisite locus standi
to
maintain
writ
petitions
u/a
226
of
Constitution seeking transfer of investigation of
concluded criminal cases to the Central Bureau
of Investigation, particularly when chargesheets have already been filed, trials have
commenced or proceedings are sub judice, and
identical relief earlier sought by the victim's wife
stood withdrawn.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - 120-B, 302, 307
and 34 - Official Secrets Act, 1923 - s. 5 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.
2(wa), 216, 320(4) (b), 394 - Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 - s. 2 (11) - Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 - s. 8 - The instant
connected writ petitions were filed by the
petitioner, the uncle of late Ajeet Singh,
seeking transfer of investigation of two
FIRs being Case Crime No. 0015 of 2021
under various sections of IPC relating to
murder of Ajeet Singh, and Case Crime No.
445 of 2020 under Official Secrets Act,
1923 to Central Bureau of Investigation,
alleging undue influence of a politically
influential accused upon the investigating
agency, namely the Special Task Force -
FIR was initially lodged by an injured
eyewitness and, after investigation by
STF, charge-sheets were filed against
multiple
accused,
including
the
said
influential person under lesser sections,
whereupon
trial
commenced
and
witnesses began to be examined - The
wife of deceased, being the primary
victim, had earlier filed multiple writ
petitions seeking identical relief of CBI
investigation, which were dismissed as
withdrawn after remand by Supreme
Court, without any challenge to charge-
12 All. Rajesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
751
sheet - Thereafter, the instant petitioner,
who was neither the informant nor a legal
heir in closest degree, instituted the
instant writ petitions without assailing the
charge-sheets, despite the fact that in the
second FIR cognizance had already been
taken and proceedings were stayed by
High Court in an application filed u/s 482
Cr.P.C.
Held: The victim in a criminal case is a person,
who has suffered a loss or injury caused by an act
or omission of accused person and also includes
his/her legal heir - In the instant case, FIR
No.0015 of 2021 has been lodged by injured
person, who was with the deceased at the time of
incident in question wherein the investigation has
been concluded and charge sheet has been filed -
The wife of deceased had rightly filed some writ
petitions as she was a victim in view of s. 2 (wa)
Cr.P.C. but she had withdrawn all the writ
petitions, therefore, those writ petitions were
dismissed by High Court being withdrawn - The
present petitioner, who is uncle of deceased, may
not come within the purview of victim or legal heir
of deceased, as the wife outshines the uncle in
'closest legal heir test' to be considered as legal
heir in view of s. 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C. - The locus
standi of a stranger to interfere in criminal
proceedings is absolutely limited - Thus, the
petitioner is not a victim as per the provisions of s.
2(wa) of Cr.P.C. - Further, the prayer of 'transfer
of investigation to 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 in the
FIR No.0015/2021 and all the proceeding of FIR
No.445/2020 has been stayed by High Court - The
entire case has been premised on apprehension
and no cogent evidence has been provided on
record to entail any entertainment of such prayer -
Any relief granted at this stage would amount to
interfering by a stranger to an ensuing trial, which
is not permissible under the provisions of Code of
Criminal Procedure and specifically barred in view
of judgment of Supreme Court - Thus, liberty is
granted to the parties to move appropriate
applications before the learned Trial Court at the
relevant stage in accordance with the provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNSS).
[Paras 35, 42, 43] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
All India Democratic Women's Association v.
State and Others, 1998 Cri. L.J. 2629 - relied
on

Shri P.V. Narshimharao v. State, 1997 Cri. L.J
3117; Prisoners Rights Forum represented by
its Director P. Pugalenthi v. High Court of
Judicature at Madras, AIR 2014 MADRAS
246; Sanjai Tiwari v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 1027 - referred to

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Official Secrets Act,
1923; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Civil
Procedure Code, 1908; Hindu Succession Act,
1956

List of Keywords
Locus standi; Victim; Legal heir; Closest legal
heir;
Writ
of
mandamus;
Transfer
of
investigation; Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI); Special Task Force (STF); Charge -sheet;
Supplementary
charge-sheet;
Cognizance;
maintainability;
Criminal
proceedings;
Interference
with
trial;
Stranger
to
the
proceedings;
Apprehension;
Investigation
concluded; Pending proceedings; Discretionary
jurisdiction;
s.
2(wa),
216
Cr.P.C.,
482;
Withdrawal of writ petition; Dismissed as
withdrawn; Misconceived petition; Infructuous
relief; Alteration of charge; Administration of
justice; Abuse of process of law.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: (Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 4791 of 2025)

Connected with other Matter

(Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6047 of 2025)

From the FIR dated 07.01.2021 registered at
P.S. Vibhuti Khand District Lucknow

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Kapil Misra, Ashish Kumar Singh

Advs. for the Respondent:
G.A., Anurag Kumar Singh, Naved Ali
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.
&
Hon'ble Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kapil Misra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K.
Singh,
learned
Government
Advocate
assisted by Sri Rao Narendra Singh,
learned counsel appearing for the State in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4791 of
2025 (hereinafter referred to as first writ
petition) and Sri Kapil Misra, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Singh,
learned Government Advocate assisted by
Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the State as well as Sri Naved
Ali, learned counsel for opposite party no.
7 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.6047
of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as second
writ petition).

2. Since the petitioners in both the
writ petitions are the same and in his
second writ petition, the petitioner has tried
to raise an issue as to how the main accused
person
may
have
influenced
the
investigating agency in the first case i.e.
Special Task Force (hereinafter referred to
as STF) inasmuch as according to him,
the said 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
(hereinafter
referred to as CBI).

3. In view of the above, since the
second writ petition is an off-shoot of the
first writ petition, both these petitions have
been heard together and with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, these writ
petitions are being connected and decided
by this common order.

4. Main prayer of first writ petition
bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.4791 of 2025 is as under:-

 "1. Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondents to transfer and entrust of
the investigation of FIR dated 07.01.2021
registered as Case Crime No.15 of 2021 u/s
120-B, 302, 307, 34 I.P.C. at P.S. Vibhuti
Khand District Lucknow to Central Bureau
of Investigation and further direct the
respondent No.5 to carry out a speedy and
expeditious
investigation
in
the
aforementioned case within a specified
time. (Annexure No. 1).

5. Main prayer of second writ
petition bearing Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.6047 of 2025 is as under:-

 "1. Issue, a writ order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to transfer
and entrust of the investigation of FIR
registered as Case Crime No. 445 of 2020
u/s 5 & of Official Secret Act, 1923 at P.S.
Vibhuti Khand District Lucknow to Central
Bureau of Investigation and further direct
the respondent No.5 to carry out a speedy
and
expeditious
investigation
in
the
aforementioned case within a specified
time. (Annexure No. 1)."

6. Notably, in both the writ
petitions, writs of mandamus have been
prayed seeking to transfer and entrust the
investigation of both the FIRs bearing (i)
Case Crime No.0015 of 2021, under
Sections 120-B, 302, 307 & 34 IPC, Police
Station- Vibhuti Khand, District- Lucknow
12 All. Rajesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
753
and (ii) Case Crime No.445 of 2020, under
Section 5 (2) of Official Secrets Act, 1923,
Police Station- Vibhuti Khand, District-
Lucknow, to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (hereinafter referred to as
CBI) and CBI be directed to carry out
speedy and expeditious investigation in the
aforesaid cases, therefore, it is amply clear
that writ of certiorari has not been prayed
in both the writ petitions assailing any FIR
or consequential proceedings.

7. At the very outset, since the
learned Government Advocate as well as
the learned counsel for the opposite party
no.7 has raised a preliminary issue relating
to maintainability of the present petitions
on the basis of locus standi of the
petitioner, this Court, as such, would like to
examine the locus of the present petitioner
to file both the aforesaid writ petitions.

8. In both the aforesaid writ
petitions, the present petitioner is neither
informant nor complainant nor the accused
person but he is admittedly uncle of one
late Ajeet Singh, who was murdered on
06.01.2021 in the State capital and for
which Case Crime No.0015 of 2021 (supra)
came to be lodged on 07.01.2021 against
three accused persons, namely, Dhruv
Singh alias Kundu Singh, Akhand Pratap
Singh,
Kanhaiya
Vishwakarma
alias
Girdhari alias Doctor and three unknown
persons, likewise the FIR bearing Case
Crime No.445 of 2020 (supra) has been
lodged by one Sub Inspector Sri Shiv
Netra Singh against one Sri Suresh
Bahadur Singh, Senior Journalist of Jan
Sandesh
and
Dhananjay
Singh
for
possessing one secret document allegedly
by adopting illegal means. In the second
FIR, the present petitioner is neither a
victim nor any affected party in any
manner whatsoever.
9. For the sake of convenience,
definition of victim mentioned under
Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C. is being
reproduced hereunder:-

 "Section 2 (wa) victim" means
a person who has suffered any loss or
injury caused by reason of the act or
omission for which the accused person has
been charged and the expression victim
includes his or her guardian or legal
heir.

10.
Perusal
of
the
aforesaid
definition clearly indicates that the victim
would be a person, who has suffered a loss
or injury caused by an act or omission by
an accused person and also includes his/her
legal heir. The informant of the first FIR
No.0015 of 2021 is Mohar Singh, son of
Sri Kling Singh, who is friend of the
deceased (Ajeet Singh) and received
injuries as he was with him when the
alleged incident of firing and murder took
place on 06.01.2021.

11. It would be pertinent to
mention herein that after the registration of
the aforesaid FIR No.0015 of 2021 (supra),
wife of late Ajeet Singh filed a writ petition
bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.25544 of 2021, (Smt. Ranoo Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and Others), seeking prayer in
the
nature
of
mandamus,
thereby
commanding the respondents to transfer
and entrust the investigation of the said FIR
to CBI. The reason for seeking such a
transfer was that one Ex-Member of
Parliament (Dhananjay Singh), who is
alleged to be involved in the murder of her
husband, is a highly influential person and
investigation already transferred from local
police to STF did not yield any result and
on the contrary was trying to protect the
said Dhananjay Singh. Thus, in the
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aforesaid background, since she was very
much apprehensive that if the investigation
is conducted by the STF, Dhananjay Singh
would either be saved or he would be
implicated only in minor sections, the said
writ petition was filed before this Court.

12. Learned AGA has informed the
Court that after thorough investigation,
charge sheet has been submitted against
thirteen
accused
persons
including
Dhananjay Singh, for whom charge sheet
has been filed only under Sections 212 &
176 IPC by the STF.

13.
Having
considered
the
aforesaid submissions of learned counsel
for the parties, this Court had dismissed the
aforesaid writ petition vide order dated
30.11.2022 observing that this Court did
not find any ground to entrust the matter to
any other agency such as CBI as charge
sheet had already been filed against thirteen
accused persons including Ex-Member of
Parliament, Dhananjay Singh and most
importantly
no
infirmity
during
investigation by the STF in the murder of
the husband of the petitioner was shown or
brought on record. However, this Court
while dismissing the aforesaid petition left
open for the petitioner to challenge the
charge sheet, if she was aggrieved and if so
advised.

14. Subsequently, wife of late
Ajeet Singh, namely, Ranoo Singh assailed
the aforesaid order of this Court dated
30.11.2022 before the Apex Court by filing
SLP (C) No.12751/2022 (Criminal Appeal
No.1867/2024), Ranoo Singh Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors., before the Apex Court and
the main plea of learned counsel for the
petitioner (Ranoo Singh) was that even if
the charge sheet has been filed, the prayer
seeking transfer of the investigation to an
independent agency may not be considered
as infructuous, if serious allegations have
been levelled against the accused persons.
It was argued by the learned counsel for
Ranoo Singh that if this Court was of the
view to dismiss the petition for the reason
that the charge sheet has been filed, at least
this Court ought to have assigned reasons
in brief as to why the grounds prayed for
transfer were not found sufficient.

15. On the basis of the aforesaid
submission of the learned counsel, the
order of this Court dated 30.11.2022 was
set aside and the matter was remitted back
to this Court for deciding the writ petition
afresh strictly in accordance with law by
the
Apex
Court
vide
order
dated
02.04.2024. The order to that effect dated
02.04.2024 (supra) reads as under:-

 "1. Delay condoned.

 2. Leave granted.

 3. These appeals challenge the
judgments and orders passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
thereby rejecting the writ petitions filed by
the
appellant(s)
for
transferring
of
investigation to an independent agency like
the Central Bureau of Investigation (for
short, CBI).

 4. The only reason given in the
impugned judgments and orders is that
since the charge-sheets had already been
filed, no ground was made out for transfer
of investigation to another agency, viz,
CBI.

 5. In our view, this cannot be a
ground for rejecting the prayer for transfer
of investigation to an independent agency.
12 All. Rajesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
755
When serious allegations have been made
by the appellant(s), the High Court should
at least have assigned reasons in brief as to
why the grounds prayed for transfer were
not found to be sufficient.

 6. In that view of the matter, the
impugned order(s) are quashed and set
aside and the matters are remitted back to
the High Court for deciding them afresh, in
accordance with law.

 7. We request the High Court to
decide the petitions as expeditiously as
possible and in any case within a period of
six months from today.

 8. We clarify that we have not
considered the merits of the matters and the
impugned judgments and orders have been
quashed and set aside only on the aforesaid
grounds.

 9. The appeals are accordingly
disposed of.

 10. Pending application(s), if
any, shall stand disposed of."

16. Later, Smt. Ranoo Singh again filed
a Miscellaneous Application No.428/2025 in
Crl.A. No.1867/2024, Ranoo Singh Vs. State
of U.P. & Ors., before the Supreme Court for
appropriate order/ directions and the Honble
Court again passed an order dated 21.03.2025
which reads as under:-

 "1. Vide order dated 02.04.2024,
we had requested the High court to decide
the petition as expeditiously as possible
and in any case within a period of six
months from today.

 2. There is no doubt that the High
Court is not an inferior Court to the
Supreme
Court.
However,
when
the
Supreme Court had made a request to the
High Court, it is expected that due
weightage should be given to such a
request.

 3. We, therefore, reiterate our
request to decide the matter within a period
of three months from today.

 4. The petitioner is at liberty to
move an application before the concerned
Bench of the High Court along with this
Order.

 5. The miscellaneous application
is, accordingly, disposed of."

17. After the aforesaid order dated
21.03.2025, which was passed by the Apex
Court, the petitioner (Ranoo Singh) in that
petition, instead of pursuing her writ
petition, which was to be decided in
compliance of the order of the Apex Court,
filed an application for withdrawal of the
said writ petition before this Court.

18. Notably, after filing of the writ
petition bearing Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.25544 of 2021, wife of late
Ajeet Singh filed three more writ petitions
bearing (i) Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.27624 of 2021, (Ranoo Singh Vs. State
of U.P. and Others), (ii) Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No.3180 of 2024, (Ranoo
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others) and
(iii) Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3786
of 2024, (Ranoo Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and Others), more or less on the same
prayers and all the writ petitions were
connected together. The applications for
withdrawal of the writ petitions were filed
in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.25544
of 2021 (i.e. remanded by the Supreme
Court) as well as in three other connected
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
writ petitions. Interestingly, the present
petitioner
(Rajesh
Singh)
filed
an
application
for
impleadment
also
in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petitions No.3180 of
2024 and 3786 of 2024. The Division
Bench of this Court vide a common order
on 23.04.2025 in all the aforesaid writ
petitions as well as in Criminal Misc.
Applications filed in the aforesaid writ
petitions, passed the following order dated
23.04.2025 (supra), which reads as under:-

 [C.M. Application No. 8 of
2025 (withdrawal of CRLP No. 25544 of
2021)]

 [C.M. Application No. 5 of 2025
(withdrawal of CRLP No. 27624 of 2021)]

 [C.M. Application No. 4 of 2025
(withdrawal of CRLP No. 3180 of 2024)]

 [C.M. Application No. 4 of 2025
(withdrawal of CRLP No. 3786 of 2024)

 Sri Ajit Singh, Advocate appears
on behalf of the petitioner-Ranoo Singh in
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 25544 of 2021,
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 27624 of 2021,
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.3180 of 2024
and Crl. Misc.Writ Petition No. 3786 of
2024 and he says that he has filed
applications for withdrawal of the petition
on behalf of the petitioner in all such writ
petitions.
These
applications
for
withdrawal are duly supported by the
affidavit of the petitioner herself.

 Sri
Rao
Narendra
Singh,
Advocate appears on behalf of Staterespondents in Crl. Misc.Writ Petition No.
3786 of 2024 and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh,
Advocate appears on behalf of respondents
in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 3180 of
2024. They have expressed their no
objection to the writ petitions being
dismissed as withdrawn.

 Accordingly, all the withdrawal
applications are allowed and the Crl. Misc.
Writ Petition No. 25544 of 2021, Crl. Misc.
Writ Petition No. 27624 of 2021, Crl. Misc.
Writ Petition No.3180 of 2024 and Crl.
Misc.Writ Petition No. 3786 of 2024 are
hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

[Application for Impleadment in
CRLP No. 3180 of 2024]

 [C.M. Application No. 6 of 2025
(Impleadment in CRLP no. 3786 of 2024)]

 Sri
Kapil
Mishra,
Advocate
appears and has pointed out that he has
filed impleadment applications in Crl.
Misc. Writ Petition No. 3180 of 2024 and
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 3786 of 2024.
However, this Court finds no good ground
to allow such impleamdnet applications, as
the writ petitions have been dismissed as
withdrawn.

 The applications for impleadment
are, accordingly, disposed of."
 (Emphasis Supplied)

19. Although no reasons were
attributed by Ranoo Singh to withdraw
these writ petition, however, it appears that
since the charge sheet had already been
filed in the FIR/ Case Crime No.0015 of
2021 (supra) and that charge sheet was not
assailed in any of the aforesaid writ
petitions, therefore, it was quite possible
that she might have thought to challenge
the charge sheet by filing appropriate
petition before the competent court. In any
case, all the writ petitions filed by the wife
of the deceased late Ajeet Singh have been
dismissed as withdrawn and all the
12 All. Rajesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
757
applications were disposed of accordingly
vide order dated 23.04.2025.

20. It is noteworthy that in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3180 of
2024 (CRLP); Ranoo Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others, the present petitioner
Rajesh Singh had filed impleadment
application, which was rejected vide order
dated 23.04.2025 (supra), therefore, the
present petitioner feeling himself aggrieved
from the order dated 23.04.2025, so far as
his impleadment has been denied, sought
similar relief before the Apex Court by
filing
petition
bearing
Writ
Petition
(Criminal) No.201/2025, Rajesh Singh Vs.
State of UP & Anr., under Article 32 of the
Constitution
of
India.
The
Honble
Supreme Court did not entertain the writ
petition, however, granted liberty to the
petitioner (Rajesh Singh) to file a fresh writ
petition before this Court and it was
directed in the disposal order, that if such a
writ petition is filed, the same shall be
considered on its own merit without being
influenced
by
the
rejection
of
the
petitioners application for impleadment
in the writ petition filed before this Court,
which has already been withdrawn. In the
light of the aforesaid observation, the
Honble Supreme Court disposed of the
aforesaid writ petition.

21. The petitioner filed the present
first writ petition, but again did not assail
the charge sheet nor filed any other petition
before this Court challenging the charge
sheet and has prayed the same identical
relief, which was earlier prayed by the wife
of late Ajeet Singh (Smt. Ranoo Singh).

22. 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 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 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.

23. 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,
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

24. Thus, this Court ought to
devise a mechanism which may be called
as the closest legal heir test to
determine as to whether a particular person
would come under the definition of legal
heir in terms of Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C.
or not, keeping in mind that the law has to
interpreted to ensure that the spirit of
justice prevails, recognizing the right to
prosecute a legitimate grievance survives
the victim, especially in serious cases, as
the present one. 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.

25. Having said so, this Court is
called upon to exercise its discretionary
power in determining the legal heir of the
victim in the present peculiar facts and
circumstances. It is pertinent to mention
herein that guardian by itself is a different
class under the definition of Section 2(wa)
Cr.P.C. relating to victim and as such, the
same may not be mixed with the concept of
legal heir, as they form a class by itself. As
far as the present case is concerned, this
Court finds that the wife of the victim, late
Ajeet Singh (i.e. Ranoo Singh) is very
much available and as such, as per the
'closest legal heir test', the right of the wife
as a legal heir outshines the right of an
uncle, as wife is a more closer legal heir in
the
pedigree
table,
than
an
uncle.
Therefore, the right of a wife to be a legal
heir of the victim is at a higher pedestal
than an uncle. The wife has admittedly
withdrawn her all writ petitions seeking
CBI investigation, therefore, the same relief
now being sought by a far away legal heir
i.e. uncle has to be seen with some
circumspection and keeping in view of the
historical facts of the present case as has
been narrated in the preceding paragraphs
can not be entertained in the absence of any
authorization and/or N.O.C. from the wife.

26. Further, the present writ
petition has not been filed in the nature of
PIL, for which in any case this Court does
not have the roster jurisdiction and when
the learned counsel for the petitioner was
given an option to pursue the relief sought
in the present writ petition, the learned
counsel choose to press the present writ
petition in its present form and prayed for
disposal of the same in accordance with
law.

27. Notably, this Court finds that
much water has flown under the bridge
after the writ petition, seeking similar relief
had been withdrawn by the wife of the
victim (deceased) after completion of the
investigation, charge sheet has been filed,
that charge sheet could have been assailed
before this Court by filing a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in this writ petition
also but admittedly, that charge sheet has
12 All. Rajesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
759
not been assailed either by the wife of the
deceased or by the present petitioner (if, at
all, he claimed to come under the definition
of legal heir of victim).

28. It has been informed by the
learned Government Advocate that a
number of witnesses of fact have already
been examined before the learned Trial
Court including the complainant in the trial
arising out of FIR No.0015 of 2021 (supra)
and the trial is going on smoothly and in
full swing.

29. So far as the second writ
petition is concerned, the complainant is
one Shiv Netra Singh, Sub Inspector and
allegations have been levelled against
two accused persons, namely, Suresh
Bahadur Singh and Dhananjay Singh. The
petitioner is not the victim as the alleged
crime is not distinctly affecting the
petitioner or his family. In that case too,
the investigation has been concluded and
charge sheet dated 10.12.2022 has been
submitted before the Court concerned.
Thereafter, cognizance has been taken by
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
on
16.01.2023. Both the accused persons
have been summoned. The aforesaid
charge sheet and summoning order have
been challenged before this Court by
opposite party no.7 of the second writ
petition, namely, Suresh Bahadur Singh
bearing Application U/S 482 No.1009 of
2024 and this Court vide order dated
20.02.2024
has
stayed
the
further
proceedings of Criminal Case No.2842 of
2023 titled as State Vs. Suresh Bahadur
Singh, pending in the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow arising out
of
FIR
No.445
of
2020
(supra).
Therefore, trial in the second writ petition
arising out of FIR No.445 of 2020 has
been stayed and in a way this Court has
already ceased of the said issue and the
same is pending for consideration.

30. Sri Kapil Misra has tried to
explain the reason behind filing of both
the writ petitions by stating that ExMember of Parliament, Dhananjay Singh,
is having close association with STF and
the STF was the investigating agency,
therefore, Dhananjay Singh was extended
undue benefit by not filing charge sheet
against him under some heavier Sections
relating to murder and conspiracy and
explained
the
fact
that
when
the
investigation was being conducted by the
local
police,
Dhananjay
Singh
was
declared proclaimed offender and a
reward of Rs.25,000/- was announced
against him for the charges punishable
under Sections 302 & 120-B of IPC but
on the eve of notification for Uttar
Pradesh Assembly Elections 2022, the
investigation was transferred to STF and
that agency has submitted charge sheet
against Dhananjay Singh in a bailable
offence under Sections 212 & 176 IPC in
FIR No.0015 of 2021 (supra).

31. Sri Kapil Misra has further
submitted that had the investigation been
transferred to CBI instead of STF, the
correct facts and circumstances must have
come into the notice and the culpability of
Dhananjay Singh being instrumental to
commit the murder of Ajeet Singh would
have surfaced. He has further submitted
that there are some instances when the local
police did not extend any undue help to
Dhananjay Singh or even Court did not
pass any order in favour of Dhananjay
Singh when he requested the Government
security cover, but according to the learned
counsel, the STF has provided all such
favour to him from time and again. Sri
Misra has also stated that Writ-C No.20672
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of 2018 was filed by Dhananjay Singh to
get the Government security cover and in
that
writ
petition,
some
confidential
documents were filed by Dhananjay Singh
and those confidential documents belonged
to the office of Inspector General of Police,
STF, U.P., Lucknow, as this Court while
disposing of the Writ-C No.20672 of 2018
has
observed
this
fact.
Therefore,
apprehension of the petitioner cannot be
overruled that if the investigating agency
was STF, who filed the charge sheet
against Dhananjay Singh in minor sections,
the trial pursuant to that FIR would not be
concluded properly.

32. On the aforesaid submissions
of Sri Kapil Mishra, Sri V.K. Singh,
learned Government Advocate, has stated
that in FIR No.0015 of 2021, the trial is
going on and relevant fact witnesses are
being examined and if during examination
of any fact witness or formal witness,
learned Trial Court finds the culpability of
any person including Dhananjay Singh,
appropriate order may be passed strictly in
accordance with law. Sri V.K. Singh has
further submitted that learned Trial Court
has got ample power to alter or add the
charge if it is so required in the interest of
justice, at any stage before judgment is
pronounced in view of Section 216 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, however, he
requests that if any observation to that
effect is issued by this Court, it may likely
affect the trial. Therefore, any alteration of
charge may be left to the learned Trial
Court and in any case, a requisite
application to that effect by the defence or
the prosecution may be filed before the
Trial Court at the appropriate stage.

33. Sri V.K. Singh has reiterated
that in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, both the aforesaid writ
petitions are misconceived for the simple
reason that the petitioner has filed the
aforesaid writ petitions having no proper
locus to file those writ petitions when
identical writ petition was filed by the wife
of the deceased which was dismissed as
being withdrawn; the present petitioner also
does not come within the definition of
victim under Section 2 (wa) Cr.P.C.
and he did not assail the charge sheet in the
writ petition or in the petition filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. so far as FIR No.0015
of 2021 is concerned. According to him,
when the investigation has already been
concluded, charge sheet has been filed,
charges have been framed against accused
persons, trial is going on and the fact
witnesses are being examined, at this stage,
the relief so prayed of transfer of
investigation to CBI in the first writ
petition may not be granted and the
petitioner may provide relevant information
to the prosecution if he is having some
important information, which are necessary
for the trial in question.

34. So far as the second writ
petition is concerned, Sri V.K. Singh has
stated that in the aforesaid case, charge
sheet arising out of Case Crime/ FIR
No.445 of 2020 (supra) has been assailed
before this Court by filing petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and further trial
proceedings have been stayed, therefore,
the
second
writ
petition
is
also
misconceived, rather the same has been
rendered infructuous for all practical
purposes. Therefore, Sri V.K. Singh,
learned
Government
Advocate,
has
requested that both the writ petitions may
be dismissed being misconceived.

35. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and having perused the
material available on record, we are of the
12 All. Rajesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
761
considered opinion that the victim in a
criminal case is a person, who has suffered
a loss or injury caused by an act or
omission of the accused person and also
includes his/her legal heir. In the present
case, FIR No.0015 of 2021 has been lodged
by the injured person, who was with the
deceased at the time of incident in question
wherein
the
investigation
has
been
concluded and charge sheet has been filed.
The wife of the deceased had rightly filed
some writ petitions as she was a victim in
view of Section 2 (wa) Cr.P.C. but she had
withdrawn all the writ petitions, therefore,
those writ petitions were dismissed by this
Court being withdrawn. The present
petitioner, who is uncle of the deceased,
may not come within the purview of victim
or legal heir of the deceased, as the wife
outshines the uncle in the closest legal
heir test to be considered as legal heir in
view of Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C.

36. In the case of All India
Democratic Women's Association Vs.
State and Others, 1998 Cri. L.J. 2629,
Madras High Court ruled that in criminal
proceedings, third parties can intervene
only to the extent of assisting the
prosecution. It was further held that if third
parties are allowed to intervene in all
criminal proceedings, then there will be a
number of associations to represent one
party or the other and this would give rise
to chaos and confusion and stalling of
criminal proceedings.

37. Further, in the case of Shri
P.V. Narshimharao Vs. State, 1997 Cri.
L.J 3117, Delhi High Court has held that a
private party/third party has no role in the
criminal proceeding instituted by the State.
The petitioner is not even a private party.
The main victim of the case has withdrawn
herself from the proceedings and a new
face in the name of the petitioner has come
up for the first time to thwart the criminal
proceedings/trial, which is in advance
stage. The petitioner is a stranger to the
present proceedings as it was held in the
case of Shri P.V. Narshimharao (supra) that
any such intervention cannot be allowed
and the petition was rejected.

38. The order of transfer of
investigation could have been passed when
the Court finds that there is new material or
evidence of sterling nature, which has been
ignored by the investigating agency but in
the present case, no such material or
evidence has been shown to the Court and
only apprehension has been shown to the
effect that the main mastermind and
allegedly the person to be instrumental in
the said crime, who allegedly planned the
murder of late Ajeet Singh is having close
association with STF, the investigating
agency, therefore, such investigation is not
proper.

39.