The Supreme Court Thursday rejected dentist Nupur Talwar’s petition for review of its earlier order that she and her husband Rajesh be tried for the murder of their daughter Aarushi and their domestic help Hemraj. It also turned down the plea for further investigation in the case.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The court, however, allowed Nupur Talwar to move a fresh bail plea as the Allahabad High Court earlier rejected her application. While Nupur Talwar is lodged at the Dasna jail in Ghaziabad, her husband, also a dentist, is out on bail.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
An apex court bench of Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice J.S. Khehar in concurrent orders, giving different reasons, dismissed Nupur Talwar’s plea seeking recall of the court’s Jan 6 judgment which directed the dentist couple to face trial in double murder case.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The court cautioned Nupur Talwar to desist from wasting the time of the court by challenging every order of the lower court right up to apex court. The court said that failure to do so would invite exemplary costs.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Talwars had challenged the Feb 9, 2011, a Ghaziabad magistrate’s order rejecting the closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the case and taking cognizance against the dentist couple for the double murder.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Justice Khehar in his order said the review petition was “wholly uncalled for…”<\/p>\n
The court expressed displeasure over the way Nupur Talwar was wasting its time and said that Nupur Talwar should abide by the advice of her counsel and future proceedings would invoke exemplary costs.<\/p>\n
“As of now, I would only seriously caution the petitioner from such behaviour in future. After all, frivolous litigation takes up a large chunk of precious court time,” Justice Khehar said.<\/p>\n
Pointing out that court understood that state of the mind of Nupur Talwar, Justice Khehar said: “While the state of mind of the accused can be understood, I shall conclude by suggesting that the accused should henceforth abide by the advice tendered to her by the learned counsel representing her. For, any uncalled or frivolous proceedings by the petitioner hereinafter may evoke exemplary costs.”<\/p>\n
Justice Khehar said, “I have noticed that every single order passed by the magistrate, having any repercussion, is being assailed right up to this court. Of course, the right to avail a remedy under law is the right of every citizen. But such a right cannot extend to misuse of jurisdiction.”<\/p>\n
“The petitioner’s attitude expresses discomfort at every order not acceding to her point of view.”<\/p>\n
“Determination on the merits of the main controversy, while dealing with the stage of cognizance and\/or issuance of process, if deliberated upon, is bound to prejudice one or the other party,” Justice Khehar said.<\/p>\n
It needed extreme restraint not to deal with the individual factual aspects canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, as have been noticed above, even though each one of them was sought to be repudiated on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the court said.<\/p>\n
“Unfortunately, while addressing submissions during the course of hearing no reference whatsoever was made either to the order passed by the high court, and more significantly, to the order passed by this court of which review has been sought. No error whatsoever was pointed out in the order passed by this court on Jan 6.”<\/p>\n
The court said the CBI was fully justified in repeatedly canvassing that through the instant review petition the petitioner was not finding fault with the Jan 6 order, but with the order passed by the magistrate Feb 9, 2011.<\/p>\n
Justice Patnaik agreed with Justice Khehar that the review petition had “no merit and should be dismissed”.<\/p>\n
“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 Hemraj,” he said.<\/p>\n
Aarushi, 14, was found murdered at her parents’ Noida residence May 16, 2008. The body of her domestic help Hemraj was found the next day on the terrace of the house.<\/p>\n
A CBI court has charged the Talwars under sections 302\/34 (murder with common intention) and 201 (destruction of evidence with common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In addition to these, the court charged Rajesh Talwar under section 203 (giving false information in respect of an offence committed) of the IPC.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Supreme Court Thursday rejected dentist Nupur Talwar’s petition for review of its earlier order that she and her husband Rajesh be tried for the murder of their daughter Aarushi and their domestic help Hemraj. It also turned down the plea for further investigation in the case. The court, however, allowed Nupur Talwar to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[1920,8779,8778],"class_list":["post-20636","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-top-law-news","tag-aarushi-case","tag-nupur-talwars-review-plea-rejected","tag-sc-rejects-nupur-talwars-review-plea"],"yoast_head":"\n