The Delhi High Court has refused to quash the summons issued to a doctor accused of terminating the pregnancy of a minor rape survivor without her consent. The Court also upheld the trial court’s order directing further investigation into the allegations, observing that the prosecution records disclose a prima facie case warranting trial.
High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Orders
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed the doctor’s petition challenging the trial court’s orders directing further investigation and issuing summons.
The Court held that the order dated September 29, 2020, directing further investigation did not warrant interference and that the order dated July 31, 2021, taking cognisance of the supplementary charge sheet and issuing summons was legally valid.
The Court observed that the prosecution materials disclosed offences against the petitioner that require adjudication during trial.
Allegations Relate to Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy
According to the prosecution, an FIR was registered on October 4, 2019, at Police Station Saket under Sections 376, 313, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The complaint alleged that the minor prosecutrix was sexually assaulted after being administered an intoxicant, resulting in pregnancy.
The prosecution further alleged that on July 26, 2019, the prosecutrix was taken by a co-accused posing as her aunt to a private medical centre in Ambedkar Nagar. After examination, she was referred to a private nursing home in Greater Kailash-II, where the doctor allegedly terminated the pregnancy.
Protest Petition Led to Further Investigation
Initially, the doctor was cited only as a prosecution witness in the main charge sheet filed on December 13, 2019.
However, on February 22, 2020, the prosecutrix filed a protest petition alleging for the first time that the doctors at the Greater Kailash-II hospital had terminated her pregnancy in conspiracy with the principal accused, forged her signatures, and misplaced documents containing her actual date of birth.
Based on these allegations, the trial court directed the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation into whether the abortion had been carried out in violation of the law while the doctors were aware that the patient was a minor and whether they failed to report the matter to the police as required under Section 19 of the POCSO Act.
Supplementary Charge Sheet Filed Against Doctor
During further investigation, the prosecutrix stated that she had recorded her correct date of birth on the hospital admission slip and alleged that hospital staff altered her age to 20 years.
Following the investigation, the Delhi Police filed a supplementary charge sheet on February 19, 2021, naming the doctor as the sole accused under Sections 313 and 201 IPC and Section 7 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.
The trial court subsequently took cognisance, additionally invoked Section 21 of the POCSO Act, and issued summons to the doctor.
High Court Finds Prima Facie Case
Before the High Court, the doctor argued that the patient had been presented as an adult and that there was no reason to seek guardian consent. It was also contended that the doctor acted in good faith under the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and was entitled to statutory protection.
The High Court, however, held that these are matters to be examined during trial.
The Court further observed that the doctor allegedly became aware of the offence on July 26, 2019, but failed to report it promptly, resulting in a delay of nearly 70 days in the registration of the FIR, which could have affected the investigation.
Finding no legal infirmity in the impugned orders, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Important Highlights
- The Delhi High Court refused to quash summons issued to a doctor accused in a minor rape victim’s pregnancy termination case.
- The Court upheld the trial court’s order directing further investigation into the allegations.
- The prosecution alleges the pregnancy was terminated without the minor’s consent and that her age was incorrectly recorded.
- A supplementary charge sheet named the doctor under Sections 313 and 201 IPC, Section 7 of the MTP Act, and the trial court also invoked Section 21 of the POCSO Act.
- The High Court held that the prosecution records disclose a prima facie case and that the issues raised by the doctor must be decided during trial.
