2012 (1) TMI 270 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the Magistrate's order dated 9.2.2011 issuing process against the accused.
2. Validity of the High Court's dismissal of the revision petition.
3. Examination of the defences raised by the accused.
4. Request for further investigation.
5. Propriety of filing the review petition.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Magistrate's order dated 9.2.2011:
The Magistrate issued process against Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar for the murders of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj based on sufficient grounds for proceeding, as per Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Magistrate's detailed order considered the evidence and circumstances, including the presence of the accused at the crime scene, the lack of forced entry, and the tampering of evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the Magistrate's order, stating that the material placed before the Magistrate was sufficient to proceed against the accused.

2. Validity of the High Court's dismissal of the revision petition:
The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by Dr. Nupur Talwar, affirming the Magistrate's order. The Supreme Court found no fault with the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the Magistrate's satisfaction was based on the available record and materials. The Supreme Court reiterated that the Magistrate's order was well-founded and based on sufficient grounds for proceeding.

3. Examination of the defences raised by the accused:
The Supreme Court noted that the defences raised by the accused, such as the absence of blood of Hemraj on their clothes and the presence of Hemraj's blood on Krishna Thadarai's pillow cover, were factual in nature and needed to be substantiated through cogent evidence during the trial. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate was not required to consider all possible defences at the stage of issuing process and found no merit in the contention that the defences should have been considered at this stage.

4. Request for further investigation:
The request for further investigation was raised by Dr. Rajesh Talwar in his protest petition and was declined by the Magistrate. The Supreme Court held that the plea for further investigation had attained finality and could not be raised again by Dr. Nupur Talwar. The Court found no merit in the contention for further investigation, emphasizing that the Magistrate's decision to proceed with the trial was justified.

5. Propriety of filing the review petition:
The Supreme Court criticized the filing of the review petition, stating that it amounted to misuse of jurisdiction. The Court noted that the petitioner was repeatedly challenging every order not in her favor, leading to unnecessary litigation and wastage of court time. The Court cautioned the petitioner against such behavior in the future and emphasized the need to abide by the advice of legal counsel to avoid frivolous proceedings.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, affirming the Magistrate's order and the High Court's decision. The Court directed the trial to proceed without being influenced by any observations made by the High Court or the Supreme Court in their respective orders.