R.K.Tarun vs Union Of India And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 1376 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 1852/2013
       R.K.TARUN                               ..... Petitioner
                        Through: Petitioner-in-person

                    versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS             ..... Respondent
                     Through: Mr Rajeev Mehra, ASG with Mr Neeraj
                              Chaudhari, CGSC, Mr Ravjyot Singh and
                              Mr Aditya Chaivdra, Advs. for UOI
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

            ORDER

%             20.03.2013
CM 3534/2013 (exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 1852/2013 The petitioner before this Court is challenging the vires and constitutional validity of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which defines the expression "victim", to the limited extent the legal heirs are included in the said definition. The contention of the petitioner is that the legal heirs under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which applies to Hindus are different from the legal heirs under Mohammendan law which applies to Muslims. He further submits that even under Mohammendan law, there are two laws of inheritance - one called Hanafi law of inheritance and W.P.(C) 1852/2013 page 1 of 3 the other Shia law of inheritance, and thus there is no uniformity as to the relatives who would be the legal heirs within the meaning of the aforesaid clause. The contention is that the aforesaid definition violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law to every citizens and Article 15 which prohibits discrimination against any citizen, inter alia, on the ground of religion.

2. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the plea taken in the petition, we find no merits in the contentions raised therein. The inclusion of legal heirs in definition of the term "victim" in Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to enable the legal heirs of such a victim of the crime who is no more alive, to seek justice for the deceased by taking recourse to the remedies made available to the victim of crime in the Code of Criminal Procedure. By including the legal heirs in the term "victim", the Legislature has enabled a whole set of relatives of a deceased person to seek justice on his behalf. If, for example, the deceased was a Hindu and he was not survived by Class-I legal heirs, any of his Class-II legal heirs can approach the Court seeking justice for the deceased. If the deceased was not survived either by Class-I or Class-II legal heirs, the remedy available to a victim in law can be availed by his Class-III legal heirs.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the legal heirs should be enumerated in the statute itself instead of leaving such remedy to the personal law of the deceased. We, however, cannot agree for two reasons - firstly, it is primarily for the State to decide as to who should be invested with the remedy to seek justice for the deceased person and the Court cannot interfere with such a provision unless it is shown to be violative of any W.P.(C) 1852/2013 page 2 of 3 fundamental rights enshrined in our constitution and, in our opinion, there is no discrimination in leaving the determination of the legal heirs for the purpose of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the personal law by which the deceased was governed. If there is any grievance on account of a particular relative not being included in the category of legal heirs of a person, the appropriate remedy is to challenge the personal law applicable to such a person on account of exclusion of such a relative from the category of legal heirs, and challenge to the definition of the "victim" as given in Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be an appropriate challenge. The second reason we find no merit in the contention of the petitioner is that if the legal heirs are enumerated in Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the deceased is not survived by any of the relatives who are so enumerated in the statute, that may result in a situation where no relative of the deceased is able to seek justice for him. From whatever angle we may take, it would be difficult to say that the aforesaid definition contravenes either Article 14 or Article 15 of the Constitution.

4. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.

                                                                  CHIEF JUSTICE


                                                                        V.K. JAIN, J
MARCH 20, 2013
Rd
W.P.(C) 1852/2013                                                 page 3 of 3