DR. MRS. NUPUR TALWAR versus C.B.I., DELHI & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 31 · Decided: 06-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 1 S.C.R. 31 
DR. MRS. NUPUR TALWAR 
v. 
C.B.I., DELHI & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2012) 
JANUARY 6, 2012 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 136 - Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to interfere 
with order of Magistrate taking cognizance, as affirmed by High 
Court - Held: The order whereby cognizance of the offence 
has been taken by the Magistrate, unless is perverse or based 
A 
B 
c 
on no material, should be sparingly interfered with - In the D 
instant case, it is evident from the order of the Magistrate 
taking cognizance that there has been due application of 
mind by him and it is a well reasoned order - The order of 
the High Court would also show that there has been a proper 
application of mind and a detailed speaking order has been E 
passed - Therefore, the concurrent order of the Magistrate 
which is affirmed by the High Court is not interfered with. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.190(1)(b) - Cognizance of offence by Magistrate - Held: F 
At the stage of taking cognizance of an 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 - At this stage the Magistrate is required to 
exercise sound judicial discretion and apply his mind to the G 
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 of the 
views expressed by the police in its report and may prima 
31 
H 
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 1 S.C.R. 
A facie find out whether an offence has been made out or not. 
In the investigation by the State police, of a case of 
the death of a young girl and a domestic help, initially the 
implication of the parents of the deceased girl transpired. 
B However, when the investigation of the case was 
entrusted to the CBI, it filed a closure report. On a notice 
issued by the court, the father of the deceased girl filed 
a protest petition. The Magistrate then took cognizance 
u/s 190(1)(b), CrPC of the offences punishable u/s 302134 
C and 201/34 IPC against the parents of the deceased girl 
for committing her murder and the murder of the domestic 
help. On a petition u/s 397/401 CrPC, the High Court 
declined to interfere. 
In the instant appeal filed by the accused mother of 
D the deceased girl, the question or consideration before 
the Court was: what should be the extent of judicial 
interference by Supreme Court in connection with an 
order of taking cognizance by a Magistrate while 
exercising his jurisdiction u/s 190 of the Code of Criminal 
E Procedure, 1973. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 190 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 lays down the conditions which are 
F requisite for the initiation of a criminal proceeding. 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 
G competent to exercise his discretion irrespective 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. [para 18-19) (41-B-CJ 
H 
1.2. The taking of cognizance means the point in time 
DR. MRS. NUPUR TALWAR v. C.B.I., DELHI & ANR. 
33 
when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an 
A 
offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect 
of such offence which appears to have been committed. 
At the stage of taking cognizance of an offence, the court 
has only to see whether prima facie there are reasons for 
issuing the process and whether the ingredients of the 
B 
offence are there on record. [para 20-21] [41-D-E] 
S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer Vs. Videocon 
lntemationa/ Ltd. and Ors. 2008 (2 ) SCR 36 = (2008) 2 SCC 
492 -relied on 
1.3. 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, 
c 
it is evident from the order of the Magistrate taking D 
cognizance 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 u/ 
ss 397 and 401 of the Code (not u/s 482) at the insta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.