[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kanku Bai Girval vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34880
1 CRR-2391-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2391 of 2022
MOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Neeraj Kumar Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Joshi - GA for the respondent/State.
HEARD ON : 17.11.2025
POSTED ON : 01.12.2025
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is
preferred challenging the legality of order dated 21.03.2022 (Annexure-P/1)
passed by the Presiding Officer of Special Court designated under Section 28 of
the POCSO Act, 2012, Ratlam (M.P.) whereby an application by the child victim
of penetrative sexual assault through her mother for permission of termination of
pregnancy and necessary direction for Police Station - Industrial Area, Ratlam and
District Hospital, Ratlam were rejected recording the reason that Court have no
jurisdiction to grant permission under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy
(MTP) Act, 1971, accordingly, for want of jurisdiction, application is not
maintainable and is hereby dismissed.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that Crime No.155/2022 registered at Police
Station - Industrial Area, Ratlam under Section 376, 506 of the IPC, 1860 and
Section 6 r/w section 5j(ii) of the POCSO Act, 2012 for committing penetrative
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34880
2 CRR-2391-2022
sexual assault with the revision petitioner and getting pregnant by the act. On
21.03.2022, an application was preferred by the child victim through her mother
seeking permission and direction as mentioned above with the specific averment
in para 7 that she approached for consultation of termination of pregnancy to the
Hospital but concerned doctors did not provide any consultation or medical
assistance on the ground that the victim is minor and a criminal case is pending
and the permission of the court and police is required. The application of the
revision petitioner was dismissed on the same day recording the reasons as
below:-
''आवेदक प क ओर से व ान अिधव ा के ारा जो आदे श तुत कया है
उसम जानक बेन रौनकभाई पटे ल व० गुजरात रा य व अ य वशेष िमनल
ए लीकेशन नंबर 1786/2013, ड . राजे र व० टे ट ऑफ तिमलनाडु व अ य
1996 िमनल लॉ जनल 3795, सुिच ा ीवा तव व अ य व० चंड गढ़
शासन (2009) 9 एससीसी 1, मीरा संतोष पाल व अ य व० भारत रा य व
अ य एआईआर 2017 एवं रट पट शन क. 408/2016 ह लो बी उफ हलीमा
व० म० ० रा य व अ य, माननीय उ चतम यायालय एवं माननीय उ च
यायालय के याय ांत पर भी वचार कया गया। परं तु उ सम त मामल
म ऐसा कोई भी मामला नह ं है जसम इस कार के वचारण क अिधका रता
रखने वाले कसी यायालय के ारा उ अिधिनयम क धारा 3 के अंतगत
गभपात क अनुमित िच क सक को दान क गई हो। इसिलए आवेदक प
के व ान अिधव ा के ारा कए गए तक को उनसे कोई बल नह ं िमलता है ।
गभ का िच क सीय समापन अिधिनयम, 1971 क धारा 3 के आलोक म
र ज कृ त िच क सा यवसायी म हला एवं उसके अिभभावक क सहमित के
उपरांत अिधिनयम के ावधान अनुसार गभ समापन के उपबंध को ावधािनत
कया गया है । उ अिधिनयम म यायालय को गभ के समापन कए जाने क
अनुमित द कए जाने का कोई अिधकार ा नह ं होने से तुत आवेदन
धारा 3 गभ का िच क सीय समापन अिधिनयम, 1971 का चलनशील न होने
से े ािधका रता के अभाव म िनर त कया जाता है ।''
3. This revision petition is preferred on the ground that the trial Court failed
to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the court for protecting the rights of child
victim of penetrative sexual assault who was again victimized by getting
pregnancy and sought the relief as below:-
(i) Kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order and allow
the application.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34880
3 CRR-2391-2022
(ii) Any other order which the court may deems fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case may be also passed in the
favour of the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his revision petition
placed reliance on the judgment of A (Mother of x) vs. State of Maharashtra &
Anr., 2024 INSC 371.
5. The material available with the case diary discloses that W.P.
No.7481/2022 was filed by the mother of the child victim before the coordinate
Bench of this Court and vide order dated 31.03.2022 the following relief was
granted which is reproduced as under:-
"(i) The victim shall be produced before the Superintendent,
District Hospital, Ratlam on 4th April, 2022.
(ii) The Committee of the District Hospital, Ratlam shall
examine the conditions of the victim before carrying out termination of
the pregnancy and in case they are of the considered opinion, that no
other complications are there in carrying out termination of the
pregnancy, the same will be conducted in the District Hospital, Ratlam.
(iii) The Superintendent, District Hospital, Ratlam shall
personally monitor and ensure that termination of pregnancy of the
victim is carried out with extreme care and caution. They will also
ensure all medical aids and assistance to be provided to the victim after
termination of her pregnancy, free of cost.
(iv) The respondents are further directed that after termination of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34880
4 CRR-2391-2022
the pregnancy, they will keep safe the DNA sample of the foetus in a
sealed cover as per prescribed procedure.
(v) At the cost of repetition, in my opinion, there is a great
urgency in this matter, considering the duration of pregnancy and
medical report given thereon. Thus, it will be the solemn duty of the
respondents to ensure compliance of this order in stricto sensu.
(vi) A typed copy of this order be given to Shri Sudhanshu Vyas,
Panel Lawyer for the State during course of the day for doing the
needful. Shri Sudhanshu Vyas is requested to communicate this order
to the respondents forthwith.
With the aforesaid observation and directions, the writ petition
stands disposed of."
6. In the light of above relief granted vide order dated 31.03.2022, the case
of revision petitioner for allowing the application does not survive but case
survive to the extent of not exercising jurisdiction vested to the trial Court and for
examining this question Rule 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred as "Rules of 2020") is being
reproduced as below:-
Medical aid and care .--(1) Where an officer of the
SJPU, or the local police receives information under section
19 of the Act that an offence under the Act has been
committed, and is satisfied that the child against whom an
offence has been committed is in need of urgent medical
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34880
5 CRR-2391-2022
care and protection, such officer, or as the case may be, the
local police shall, within 24 hours of receiving such
information, arrange to take such child to the nearest
hospital or medical care facility center for emergency
medical care:
Provided that where an offence has been committed
under sections 3, 5, 7 or 9 of the Act, the victim shall be
referred to emergency medical care.
(2) Emergency medical care shall be rendered in such
a manner as to protect the privacy of the child, and in the
presence of the parent or guardian or any other person in
whom the child has trust and confidence.
(3) No medical practitioner, hospital or other medical
facility center rendering emergency medical care to a child
shall demand any legal or magisterial requisition or other
documentation as a pre-requisite to rendering such care.
(4) The registered medical practitioner rendering
medical care shall attend to the needs of the child, including:
(a) treatment for cuts, bruises,
and other injuries including genital
injuries, if any;
(b) treatment for exposure to
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34880
6 CRR-2391-2022
including prophylaxis for identified
STDs;
(c) treatment for exposure to
Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(HIV), including prophylaxis for HIV
after necessary consultation with
infectious disease experts;
(d) possible pregnancy and
emergency contraceptives should be
discussed with the pubertal child and
her parent or any other person in
whom the child has trust and
confidence; and,
(e) wherever necessary, a
referral or consultation for mental or
psychological health needs, or
other counseling, or drug de-addiction
services and programmes should be
made.
(5) The registered medical practitioner shall submit
the report on the condition of the child within 24 hrs to the
SJPU or Local Police.
(6) Any forensic evidence collected in the course of
rendering emergency medical care must be collected in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34880
7 CRR-2391-2022
accordance with section 27 of the Act.
(7) If the child is found to be pregnant, then the
registered medical practitioner shall counsel the child, and
her parents or guardians, or support person, regarding the
various lawful options available to the child as per the
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 and the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015
(2 of 2016).
(8) If the child is found to have been administered any
drugs or other intoxicating substances, access to drug
deaddiction programme shall be ensured.
(9) If the Child is a divyang (person with disability),
suitable measure and care shall be taken as per the
provisions of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 (49 of 2016).
7. When the allegations were that the concerned hospital has denied the
relief to the child then the trial Court was duty bound to exercise the jurisdiction
to grant the medical aid and care to the child victim as provided under Sub-rule 1
and 2 of Rule 6 of Rules of 2020 and to pass the order to the concerned hospital to
provide the rights granted by Sub-rule 7 of Rule 6 of Rules of 2020 and also to
extend the legal arm in favour of the child victim on priority. If the trial Court was
not authorized to permit or not to permit the medical termination of pregnancy of
the child victim then the trial Court was expected to apprise the concerned as per
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34880
8 CRR-2391-2022
Standard Operating Procedure to be followed in case where the age of
foetus/pregnancy of survivor of sexual assault or rape or incest is upto 24 weeks
as mentioned in Reference (Suo Motu) vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others (MPHC-JBP:8112) and reproduced in para 13(a) of the judgment and the
trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the court to that extent and
the purpose of revision is fulfilled, hence, the order be communicated to the trial
Court for future guidance.
This court feels its duty to recognise the efforts of the mother of the child
victim and her counsel. Though the purpose was served on 31.03.2022 when this
court granted the relief vide W.P.No.7481/2022 but the mother pursued this
proceeding so that no other child victim face such difficulty and learned counsel
assisted the court with fairness. This Court appreciate the efforts of mother as well
as the learned counsel.
8. In view of the aforesaid direction, revision petition is disposed of.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS
