2012 (6) TMI 905 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Dismisses Review Petition, Affirms Order to Summon in Double Murder Case, Cautions Against Frivolous Litigation.

Nupur Talwar Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

The SC dismissed the review petition filed by Dr. Nupur Talwar, affirming the Magistrate's order to summon the Talwars based on sufficient grounds for ... Double murder - offence(s) Under Section 302/201 Indian Penal Code - Seeking further investigation - Magistrate taking cognizance u/s 190 Code of Criminal Procedure and issuing process u/s 204 Code of Criminal Procedure - whether the Magistrate was justified in issuing the process to the Petitioner and her husband by her order dated 09.02.2011 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the High Court has not examined whether there were materials before the Magistrate to take a view that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the Petitioner and her husband, but while hearing the Review Petition, we have perused the relevant materials collected in the course of the investigation and we cannot hold that the opinion of the Magistrate that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the Petitioner and her husband u/s 204 Code of Criminal Procedure was not a plausible view on the materials collected in course of investigation and placed before her along with the closure report. As we have seen, Sub-section (1) of Section 204 Code of Criminal Procedure. provides that the Magistrate shall issue the process (summons or warrant) if in his opinion there was sufficient ground for proceeding and therefore so long as there are materials to support the opinion of the Magistrate that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the persons to whom the processes have been issued, the High Court in exercise of its revisional power will not interfere with the same only because it forms a different opinion on the same materials. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the order dated 09.02.2011 of the Magistrate taking cognizance u/s 190 Code of Criminal Procedure. and issuing process against the Petitioner and her husband u/s 204 Code of Criminal Procedure. could not have been interfered with by the High Court in the Revision filed by the Petitioner. Moreover, once the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process against the Petitioner and her husband was sustained, there is no scope for granting the relief of further investigation for the purpose of finding out whether someone other than the Petitioner and her husband had committed the offences in respect of the deceased persons Aarushi and/or Hemraj. As has been held by this Court in Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) [1996 (12) TMI 415 - SUPREME COURT], once a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence u/s 190 Code of Criminal Procedure., he cannot order of his own further investigation in the case u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. but if subsequently the Sessions Court passes an order discharging the accused persons, further investigation by the police on its own would be permissible, which may also result in submission of fresh charge-sheet. Thus, I agree with my learned brother Khehar, J. that this Review Petition has no merit and should be dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Double murder investigation of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj.2. Initial investigation by U.P. Police and subsequent investigation by CBI.3. Arrests and release of suspects including Dr. Rajesh Talwar.4. CBI's submission of a closure report citing insufficient evidence.5. Protest petition by Dr. Rajesh Talwar against the closure report.6. Magistrate's rejection of the closure report and summoning of Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar.7. Legal scrutiny of the Magistrate's order by the High Court and Supreme Court.8. Review petition filed by Dr. Nupur Talwar against the Supreme Court's dismissal of her appeal.Detailed Analysis:1. Double Murder Investigation:The controversy arises from the double murder of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj on the night of 15-16 May 2008. Aarushi was found dead in her bedroom, and Hemraj's body was discovered the next day on the terrace of the same house.2. Initial and Subsequent Investigation:The initial investigation was conducted by the U.P. Police, which later handed over the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on May 29, 2008. The CBI then took over the investigation.3. Arrests and Release of Suspects:During the investigation, suspicion also fell on Krishna Thadarai, Rajkumar, and Vijay Mandal, besides Dr. Rajesh Talwar. Dr. Rajesh Talwar was arrested on May 23, 2008, and was released on bail on July 11, 2008. The other suspects were also arrested but released on bail due to incomplete investigations within the stipulated time.4. CBI's Closure Report:On December 29, 2010, the CBI submitted a closure report citing insufficient evidence to prove the alleged offenses against Dr. Rajesh Talwar beyond reasonable doubt. The closure report highlighted several shortcomings, including the absence of Hemraj's blood in Aarushi's room, no evidence of forced entry, and inconclusive scientific tests.5. Protest Petition by Dr. Rajesh Talwar:Dr. Rajesh Talwar filed a protest petition against the closure report on January 25, 2011, seeking further investigation to identify the real culprits of the murders.6. Magistrate's Rejection of Closure Report:On February 9, 2011, the Magistrate rejected the CBI's closure report and the protest petition for further investigation. Instead, the Magistrate took cognizance of the case and summoned Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar for the murders and tampering with evidence.7. Legal Scrutiny by Higher Courts:Dr. Nupur Talwar challenged the Magistrate's order through a revision petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on March 18, 2011. Dissatisfied, she approached the Supreme Court, which also dismissed her appeal on January 6, 2012. In the review petition, the focus was on the Magistrate's detailed order and whether it was appropriate at the stage of issuing process.8. Review Petition:In the review petition, Dr. Nupur Talwar argued that the Magistrate's order was unnecessarily exhaustive and that the Magistrate had evaluated the merits of the case prematurely. The Supreme Court reiterated that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate only needs to determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding, not for conviction. The Court found no merit in the criticism of the Magistrate's detailed order and upheld the issuance of process against the Talwars.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, affirming that the Magistrate's order was based on sufficient grounds for proceeding. The Court emphasized that the detailed order did not occasion a failure of justice and was appropriate given the circumstances. The review petition was deemed uncalled for and dismissed, with a caution against frivolous litigation.