1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.68 OF 2012 ARISING OUT OF

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2982/2011

Dr. MRS. NUPUR TALWAR ... APPELLANT(S)  

                VERSUS

C.B.I., DELHI & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T GANGULY, J.

1. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties.

2. Leave granted.

2

3. The subject matter of challenge before this  

Court is an order dated 18th March, 2011 of the  

Allahabad High Court whereby the High Court on a  

petition under Section 397/401 of the Criminal  

Procedure  Code  (hereinafter  ‘Code’)  challenging  

the  order  dated  9th February,  2011  passed  by  

Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad in  

Special  Case  No.01  of  2011  (Rajesh  Talwar Vs.  Unknown under Section 302, I.P.C.  P.S.  S.C.B.  C.B.I.,  Delhi)  refused  to  interfere  with  

Magistrate’s order of taking cognizance.   

4. By the said order dated 9th February, 2011,  

the  Magistrate  had  taken  cognizance  of  the  

offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C.  

against the appellant and one Dr. Rajesh Talwar.  

The  concluding  portion  of  the  order  of  the  

Magistrate is:-

“While rejecting the conclusion given  in the Final Report by the Investigating  Officer, cognizance on the basis of Police  report under section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

3

is taken under section 302/34 and 201/34  IPC against accused Dr. Rajesh Talwar and  Dr. Nupur Talwar for committing murders of  Arushi and Hem Raj and for tampering with  the proofs.  The accused be summoned for  appearance  on  28.02.2011.   Copies  be  prepared.”

5. The entire case arises out of an unfortunate  

murder of a young girl namely, ‘Aarushi’ in her  

own residence and also the murder of one Hemraj,  

a  domestic  help.   It  appears  that  the  said  

unfortunate murder of the young girl raised some  

kind of a sensation in public mind and an uproar.  

Be that as it may, sitting in the Courts of law,  

we have to steer clear  of the public debate and  

follow the course of law.   

6. Initially,  the  investigation  was  conducted  

by  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Police  in  which  the  

implication of Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur  

Talwar,  parents  of  the  deceased  victim  girl  

transpired. Thereafter, the investigation of the  

case was handed over to the C.B.I. on 29th May,

4

2008 on the basis of a notification by the State.  

Prior  to  that,  on  23rd May,  2008,  Dr.  Rajesh  

Talwar was arrested. The CBI initially filed a  

closure report of the investigation. On the basis  

of that report, an application was filed by the  

C.B.I. under Section 169 of the Code before the  

Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ghaziabad.  

The contents of the said petition read as under:

“i. That  accused  Rajesh  Talwar  was  arrested  in  the  aforesaid  case  on  23.5.2008.  Subsequently,  following  expiry  of  his  police  remand,  this  Hon'ble Court remanded him to judicial  custody  upto  11.7.2008  vide  order  dated 2.7.2008.

ii. That the investigation of this case is  still pending and all the facts and  circumstances  of  the  case  are  being  investigated.

iii.That during investigation, the role of  accused  Rajesh  Talwar  was  thoroughly  investigated  regarding  the  aforesaid  crime.

iv. That  during  investigation,  the  poly  right  to  psychological  analysis  test  of accused Rajesh Talwar was conducted  and no deception has been found in the  test reports.

5

v. That during investigation, the cloths,  shoes and finger palm/foot prints of  accused  Rajesh  Talwar  was  forwarded/submitted to CFSL, New Delhi  for  examination  and  expert  opinion.  The  Scientific  examination  results  could  not  connect  accused  Rajesh  Talwar with the crime.

vi. That  in  view  of  the  above  circumstances,  the  further  judicial  custody  remand  of  accused  Rajesh  Talwar is not required in the interest  of justice.

Prayer

It is, therefore, prayed that Judicial  custody  remand  of  accused  Rajesh  Talwar may not be extended.”     

7. On the basis of the aforementioned prayer of  

C.B.I. under Section 169 of the Code, an order  

came  to  be  passed  on  11th July,  2008  by  the  

learned  Magistrate  and  Dr.  Rajesh  Talwar  was  

released on his furnishing two sureties of Rs.5  

lakh  each  with  a  personal  bond  of  the  same  

amount.

8. Thereafter, the C.B.I. filed another closure

6

report on 29th December, 2010. Then, on a notice  

being  issued  by  the  Court,  a  protest  petition  

came  to  be  filed  by  Dr.  Rajesh  Talwar.  Only  

thereafter, the impugned order of the Magistrate  

dated 9th February, 2011 came to be passed. The  

learned Magistrate in his detailed order after  

considering various aspects of the matter took  

cognizance of the offence and passed the order,  

quoted above.

9. It is apparent from the detailed order that  

the Magistrate rejected the conclusion given in  

the official report of the Investigating Officer  

and took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of  

the Code.  

10. Attention of this Court has been drawn to  

various  parts  of  the  CBI  closure  report  and  

certain  other  documents  by  Mr.  Ranjit  Kumar,  

learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant.

7

11. Sitting in a jurisdiction under Article 136  

of the Constitution, we do not feel inclined to  

go  into  all  the  factual  aspects  of  the  case.  

Obviously at this stage we cannot weigh evidence.  

Looking  into  the  order  of  Magistrate,  we  find  

that  he  applied  his  mind  in  coming  to  the  

conclusion relating to taking of cognizance.  The  

Magistrate has taken note of the rejection report  

and  gave  his  prima  facie  observation  on  the  

controversy upon a consideration of the materials  

that  surfaced  in  the  case.  We  reproduce  the  

conclusions  reached  by  the  Special  Judicial  

Magistrate.

“From  the  analysis  of  evidence  of  all  above mentioned witnesses prima facie it  appears that after investigation, on the  basis  of  evidence  available  in  the  case  diary when this incident occurred at that  time  four  members  were  present  in  the  house—Dr. Rajesh Talwar, Dr. Nupur Talwar,  Arushi and servant Hem Raj; Arushi and Hem  Raj, the two out of four were found dead.  In  the  case  diary  there  is  no  such  evidence  from  which  it  may  appear  that  some  person  had  made  forcible  entry  and

8

there is no evidence regarding involvement  of  the  servants.  In  the  night  of  the  incident, Internet was switched on and off  in  the  house  in  regard  to  which  this  evidence  is  available  in  the  case  diary  that it was switched on or off by some  person. Private parts of deceased Arushi  were  cleaned  and  deceased  Hem  Raj  was  dragged in injured condition from the flat  of Dr. Rajesh Talwar up to the terrace and  the  terrace  was  locked.  Prior  to  15.5.2008,  terrace  was  not  locked.  According  to  documents  available  on  the  case diary, blood stains were wiped off on  the staircase, both the deceased were slit  with the help of a surgical instrument by  surgically  trained  persons  and  shape  of  injury  on  the  head  and  forehead  was  V  shaped  and  according  to  the  evidence  available in the case diary that appeared  to have been caused with a golf stick. A  person  coming  from  outside,  during  the  presence  of  Talwar  couple  in  the  house  could have neither used the Internet nor  could have taken the dead body of deceased  Hem  Raj  to  the  terrace  and  then  locked  when the Talwar couple was present in the  house. On the basis of evidence available  in the case diary footprints stained with  blood were found in the room of Arushi but  outside that room bloodstained footprints  were not found. If the assailant would go  out after committing murder then certainly  his footprints would not be confined up to  the room of Arushi and for an outsider it  is  not  possible  that  when  Talwar  couple  were  present  in  the  house  he  would  use  liquor or would try to take dead body on  the terrace. Accused after committing the  offence would like to run away immediately  so that no one could catch him.

9

On the basis of evidence of all the above  witnesses  and  circumstantial  evidence  available  in  case  diary  during  investigation  it  was  expected  from  the  Investigating  Officer  to  submit  charge- sheet  against  Dr.  Rajesh  Talwar  and  Dr.  Nupur Talwar. In such type of cases, when  offence is committed inside a house, there  direct evidence cannot be expected. Here  it is pertinent to mention that CBI is the  highest  investigating  agency  of  the  country in which the public of the country  has full confidence. Whenever in a case if  any one of the investigating agencies of  the  country  remained  unsuccessful  then  that  case  is  referred  to  CBI  for  investigation.  In  such  circumstances,  it  is  expected  of  CBI  that  applying  the  highest standards, after investigation it  should  submit  such  a  report  before  the  Court which is just and reasonable on the  basis  of  evidence  collected  in  investigation, but it was not done so by  the CBI which is highly disappointing. If  I draw a conclusion from the circumstances  of case diary, then I find that in view of  the  facts,  the  conclusion  of  the  investigating officer that on account of  lack of evidence, case may be closed; does  not  appear  to  be  just  and  proper.  When  offence was committed inside a house, on  the basis of evidence received from case  diary,  a  link  is  made  from  these  circumstances,  and  these  links  are  indicating  prima  facie  the  accused  Dr.  Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar to be  guilty. The evidence of witness Shoharat  that Dr. Rajesh Talwar asked him to paint  the wooden portion of a wall between the  rooms  of  Arushi  and  Dr.  Rajesh  Talwar,  indicates towards the conclusion that he  wants  to  tamper  with  the  evidence.  From

10

the evidence … so many in the case diary,  prima  facie  evidence  is  found  in  this  regard. Therefore, in the light of above  evidences  conclusion  of  Investigating  Officer given in the final report deserves  to  be  rejected  and  there  is  sufficient  basis  for  taking  prima  facie  cognizance  against  Dr.  Rajesh  Talwar  and  Dr.  Nupur  Talwar for committing murder of deceased  Arushi and Hem Raj and for tampering with  the proof. At this stage, the principle of  law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in  the  case  of  Jagdish  Ram  Vs.  State  of  Rajasthan  and  another,  reported  in  AIR  2004 SC 1734 is very important wherein the  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  held  that  investigation  is  the  job  of  police  and  taking  of  cognizance  is  within  the  jurisdiction of the Magistrate. If on the  record, this much of evidence is available  that prima facie cognizance can be taken  then  the  Magistrate  should  take  cognizance. Magistrate should be convinced  that  there  is  enough  basis  for  further  proceedings  rather  for  sufficient  basis  for proving the guilt.”

12. Assailing  the  said  order,  a  Criminal  

Revision was filed before the High Court under  

Sections 397 and 401 of the Code, not by Dr.  

Rajesh Talwar, father of the girl but by Dr. Mrs.  

Nupur Talwar, her mother.  

13. The High Court passed its order dated 18th

11

March, 2011 after a detailed consideration of the  

factual aspects and legal questions involved in  

the  matter  of  taking  cognizance  and  the  same  

order is impugned before us.

14. In the concluding portion of its order, High  

Court held:

“However, considering the facts of the  case  it  is  directed  that  in  case  the  revisionist surrenders before the Special  Judicial  Magistrate  (C.B.I.),  Ghaziabad  and applies for bail within a period of  two weeks from today her bail application  shall be dealt with in accordance with the  law expeditiously.”

15. On the next day i.e. 19th March 2011, which  

was a Saturday, a Bench of this Court entertained  

at 7 P.M. an SLP against the High Court’s order  

and passed the following order:-

“List  on  the  notified  date.  In  the  meanwhile, there shall be stay as prayed  for.  However,  the  petitioners  shall  deposit  their  passports  with  the  trial

12

Court on Monday i.e. 21.03.2011.”

16. Since then, the matter has remained pending  

before this Court.  

17. Now  the  question  is  what  should  be  the  

extent of judicial interference by this Court in  

connection with an order of taking cognizance by  

a  Magistrate  while  exercising  his  jurisdiction  

under Section 190 of the Code.

18. Section  190  of  the  Code  lays  down  the  

conditions which are requisite for the initiation  

of a criminal proceeding.

19. At this stage the Magistrate is required to  

exercise sound judicial discretion and apply his  

mind to the facts and materials before him. In  

doing  so,  the  Magistrate  is  not  bound  by  the  

opinion of the investigating officer and he is  

competent to exercise his discretion irrespective

13

of  the  views  expressed  by  the  Police  in  its  

report and may prima facie find out whether an  

offence has been made out or not.

20. The taking of cognizance means the point in  

time when a Court or a Magistrate takes judicial  

notice of an offence with a view to initiating  

proceedings  in  respect  of  such  offence  which  

appears to have been committed.

21. At  the  stage  of  taking  of  cognizance  of  

offence, the Court has only to see whether prima  

facie there are reasons for issuing the process  

and whether the ingredients of the offence are  

there on record.

22. The  principles  relating  to  taking  of  

cognizance  in  a  criminal  matter  has  been  very  

lucidly explained by this Court in  S.K. Sinha,  Chief  Enforcement  Officer Vs.  Videocon

14

International  Ltd. and Ors. – (2008) 2 SCC 492,  the relevant observations are set out:

“19.The  expression  “cognizance”  has  not  been  defined  in  the  Code.  But  the  word  (cognizance) is of indefinite import. It  has no esoteric or mystic significance in  criminal  law.  It  merely  means  “become  aware of” and when used with reference to  a court or a Judge, it connotes“ to take  notice  of  judicially”.  It  indicates  the  point when a court or a Magistrate takes  judicial notice of an offence with a view  to  initiating  proceedings  in  respect  of  such offence said to have been committed  by someone.”

20. “Taking  Cognizance”  does  not  involve  any formal action of any kind. It occurs  as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind  to the suspected commission of an offence.  Cognizance is taken prior to commencement  of  criminal  proceedings.  Taking  of  cognizance  is  thus  a  sine  qua  non  or  condition  precedent  for  holding  a  valid  trial. Cognizance is taken of an offence  and not of an offender. Whether or not a  Magistrate  has  taken  cognizance  of  an  offence  depends  on  the  facts  and  circumstances of each case and no rule of  universal application can be laid down as  to when a Magistrate can be said to have  taken cognizance.”

(para nos. 19 and 20 at page 499 of  the report)

15

23. The  correctness  of  the  order  whereby  

cognizance of the offence has been taken by the  

Magistrate, unless it is perverse or based on no  

material, should be sparingly interfered with. In  

the instant case, anyone reading the order of the  

Magistrate taking cognizance, will come to the  

conclusion that there has been due application of  

mind by the Magistrate and it is a well reasoned  

order. The order of the High Court passed on a  

Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 of  

the code (not under Section 482) at the instance  

of Dr. Mrs. Nupur Talwar would also show that  

there has been a proper application of mind and a  

detailed speaking order has been passed.  

24. In  the  above  state  of  affairs,  now  the  

question  is  what  is  the  jurisdiction  and  

specially  the  duty  of  this  Court  in  such  a  

situation under Article 136?

25. We feel constrained to observe that at this

16

stage, this Court should exercise utmost restrain  

and  caution before interfering with an order of  

taking cognizance by the Magistrate,otherwise the  

holding of a trial will be stalled.  The superior  

Courts should maintain this restrain to uphold  

the rule of law and sustain the faith of the  

common man in the administration of justice.

26. Reference in this connection may be made to  

a three Judge Bench decision of this Court in the  

case of M/s. India Carat Private Ltd. Vs. State  

of Karnataka & Anr. (1989) 2 SCC 132. Explaining  

the relevant principles in paragraphs 16, Justice  

Natarajan, speaking for the unanimous three Judge  

Bench, explained the position so succinctly that  

we would rather quote the observation: as under:-

“The  position  is,  therefore,  now  well  settled  that  upon  receipt  of  a  police  report under Section 173(2) a Magistrate  is   entitled  to  take  cognizance  of  an  offence under  Section 190(1)(b)  of the  Code even if the police report is  to the  effect that no case is made out against

17

the  accused. The Magistrate can take into  account  the  statements  of  the  witnesses  examined  by  the  police  during   the  investigation and  take cognizance of the  offence complained of and  order the issue  of  process  to  the  accused.  Section  190(1)(b)  does  not   lay   down  that  a  Magistrate  can  take  cognizance   of   an  offence only if the investigating officer  gives an  opinion that  the  investigation  has made out a  case against the accused.  The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion  arrived at by  the investigating officer;  and independently  apply his mind  to the  facts emerging from the investigation and  take cognizance of the case, if he thinks  fit,  in  exercise  of  his  powers  under  Section 190(1)(b) and direct  the  issue  of process to the accused...”

27. These  well  settled  principles  still  hold  

good.  Considering these propositions of law, we  

are of the view that we should not interfere with  

the concurrent order of the Magistrate which is  

affirmed by the High Court.  

28. We are deliberately not going into various  

factual  aspects  of  the  case  which  have  been  

raised before us so that in the trial the accused  

persons  may  not  be  prejudiced.  We,  therefore,

18

dismiss this appeal with the observation that in  

the trial which the accused persons will face,  

they should not be prejudiced by any observation  

made by us in this order or in the order of the  

High  Court  or  those  made  in  the  Magistrate’s  

order while taking cognizance.  The accused must  

be given all opportunities  in the trial they are  

to face.  We, however, observe that the trial  

should be expeditiously held.

29. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

.............................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)            

.............................J.   (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)          

NEW DELHI, 06-01-2012