No relief, SC rejects Nupur’s review plea
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed Nupur Talwar’s plea to reconsider its refusal to set aside a magistrate court order summoning the dentist couple to face trial for the murder of their teenaged daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj.Updated: Jun 07, 2012, 23:30 IST
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed Nupur Talwar’s plea to reconsider its refusal to set aside a magistrate court order summoning the dentist couple to face trial for the murder of their teenaged daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj.
A bench of Justice AK Patnaik and Justice JS Khehar also warned Nupur of inviting “exemplary costs” in case she resorted to any other frivolous litigation.
Rejecting her plea for further investigation into the case, the court dismissed Nupur’s bail plea as “infructuous.” While Nupur is lodged at Dasna Jail, her husband is out on bail. Trial in the case has already begun after a sessions court in Ghaziabad framed charges against the couple.
Writing a separate, but concurrent judgement to the one delivered by Justice Khehar, Justice Patnaik said: “….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 was not a plausible view on the materials collected in course of investigation and placed before her alongwith the closure report.”
After investigating the case, the CBI filed a closure report on December 29, 2010, holding that there wasn’t enough prosecutable evidence against the Talwars. In response to the closure, Rajesh filed a protest petition seeking further probe in the case. Rejecting both, the magistrate on February 9, 2011, summoned the couple for trial.
Irked by the spate of applications, petitions and review petitions filed by the Talwars in various courts, Justice Khehar stated: “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.”
“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 learned counsel representing her,” it added.