IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR ON THE 12^th OF DECEMBER, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 39431 of 2024 SEEMA BAI.

Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Aditi Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

ORDER

1] This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under the provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred to as “Act of 1971”) for termination of the pregnancy of the petitioner’s daughter, a minor girl, aged 15 years, who is a victim of gang rape in Crime No.532/2024 registered at P.S. Mehidpur, Dist. Ujjain for offences under Section 64(2), 65(1), 372(2), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and 3, 4(2), 5j(ii), 5L, 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed on record.

3] On the last date of hearing, i.e., 9/12/2024, this Court had directed the victim to appear before the Chief Medical and Health Signature Not Verified Officer, Charak Hospital, District Ujjain on 10.12.2024, for her medical checkup.

4] Today, learned counsel for the State has placed on record the report received from the office of Civil Surgeon, Chief Health Officer/Superintendent District Ujjain, whereby, it has been found that the petitioner’s daughter is found to be fit for medical termination of her pregnancy, with written and informed consent with due procedural risk.

5] In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds it expedient to allow this petition and permit the petitioner’s daughter (victim) to have her pregnancy medically terminated by following the due procedure at Civil Surgeon, Chief Health Officer/Superintendent District Ujjain.

6] Accordingly, the Superintendent, Civil Surgeon, Chief Health Officer/Superintendent District Ujjain is directed to do the needful and medically terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner’s daughter (victim) at the earliest.

7] Needless to say, the victim's identity shall not be disclosed. It is further directed that samples/viscera of the fetus shall be preserved for DNA sampling, to be produced before the competent Court where criminal case is pending.

8] Counsel for the State is also directed to ensure that no inconvenience is caused to the victim due to procedural delays.

Signature Not Verified REGARDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE APPLICATION FOR MTP.

9] It is also found that earlier, on 04.12.2024, the petitioner had also approached the learned Judge of the trial Court for termination of her daughter’s pregnancy, however, the same has been rejected by the learned judge of the trial Court vide its order dated 05.12.2024, only on the ground that the petitioner has not produced medical documents in support of her application, the same reads as under :-

“प्ቔावली आवेदि(cid:12)का की ओर से ्ቚस्त ुत आवे(cid:12)न पर दिवचार हेतु दिनयत है।

आवेदि(cid:12)का की ओर से ्ቚस्त ुत आवे(cid:12)न इस ्ቚकार है दिक आवे(cid:12)क की आवयस्क पु्ቔी के साथ आरोदिपयो ं ने उसकी इच्छ ा के दिवरू्ቍ बलात्स ंग दिकया तथा नाबादिलक पीदि’ता को ’रा-धमकाकर दिकसी को भी बताने से मना दिकया, जब पीदि’ता का स्व ास् थ्य लगातार खराब रहने लगा था, उक्त ቝኌस्थदित में पीदि’ता के नाना एवं माता ्ቛारा शासकीय चरक हॉस् पीटल उज्ज ैन में पीदि’ता का मे’ीकल परी्ቌण करवाया गया तथा ’ॉक् टरी दिन(cid:12);श के आधार पर सोनो्ቇाफी टेस्ट करवाया गया तो पीदि’ता के चार से साढे चार माह गभ?वती होने की पुदि@ हुई, हास्प ीटल ्ቛारा पुदिलस उज्ज ैन तथा मदिह(cid:12)पुर को सूदिचत दिकया गया दिजसके आधार ्ቛारा पुदिलस थाना ्ቚकरण पंजीब्ቍ दिकया गया, दिजसका अपराध ्ቅमांक 532/2024, ्ቚकरण पंजीब्ቍ कर जांच आरंभ की गई, वत?मान में आरोपी दिगर्቏ार नहीं हुए हैं, पीदि’ता बचपन से ही अपने नाना-नानी के पास ्ቇाम भीमाखे’ा, तहसील मदिह(cid:12)पुर में ही दिनवासरत रही है तथा रायल कान्व ेंट स्क ू ल मदिह(cid:12)पुर में आठवी ंक्ቌा में अध्य यनरत होकर पीदि’ता को पांच माह या उससे अदिधक का गभ? होने पर पीदि’ता का गभ?पात नहीं करवाया जा सके गा, माननीय उच्च न्