The Delhi High Court refused to quash summons issued to Dr. Poonam Mishra, who is accused of terminating the pregnancy of a minor rape survivor without her consent. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav upheld the trial court's order directing further investigation, observing that the prosecution material was sufficient to warrant a trial. The case arose from a protest petition filed by the survivor in 2020, alleging that her pregnancy was terminated in conspiracy with the main rape accused. According to ANI, the court found no legal infirmity in the orders directing further investigation and issuing summons, and dismissed Dr. Mishra's petition after finding no merit in her challenge.

According to ANI, the survivor filed a protest petition on February 22, 2020, alleging for the first time that doctors at a Greater Kailash-II nursing home terminated her pregnancy in conspiracy with the main rape accused by forging her signatures and misplacing documents recording her actual date of birth. Acting on the petition, the trial court directed Delhi Police to conduct further investigation.

Delhi Police had initially filed a chargesheet naming Rishipal Chaudhary, Anita, and Nitin Aggarwal as accused, while Dr. Poonam Mishra was cited as a prosecution witness. Following further investigation, a supplementary chargesheet named Dr. Mishra as the sole accused under Sections 313 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. The trial court subsequently invoked Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act before issuing summons.

According to the prosecution, the survivor, then 16 years old, visited a private medical centre in July 2019 with a woman posing as her aunt, who allegedly told hospital staff that she was 20 years old. Dr. Poonam Mishra allegedly confirmed the six-week pregnancy, referred the survivor to a private nursing home in Greater Kailash-II, and performed the pregnancy termination there. The prosecution further alleged that the offence was not reported to the police despite the survivor being a minor.

According to ANI, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed, "The prosecution materials would show that the alleged offence against the petitioner is made out from the prosecution records, warranting trial." The judge also noted that Dr. Mishra allegedly failed to report the offence after becoming aware of it, observing that the delay of nearly 70 days in registration of the case may have affected the timely investigation. The court further held that the September 29, 2020, order directing further investigation and the July 31, 2021, order taking cognizance and issuing summons did not warrant interference under Section 482 CrPC.

Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, healthcare professionals who become aware of a sexual offence against a child are legally required to report it to the police. In this case, the prosecution alleged that Dr. Poonam Mishra failed to fulfil that obligation after treating the minor survivor.

Dr. Mishra argued that the survivor had been recorded as an adult, appeared cooperative throughout the procedure, and therefore there was no requirement to seek consent from a guardian. She also contended that the provisions relating to miscarriage under the IPC were subject to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and that she had acted in good faith, making her eligible for protection under Section 8 of the MTP Act. According to ANI, Justice Kaurav held that the order issuing summons "does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC."

Also see: Delhi ₹700 Crore Medical Procurement Scam: ACB Hunts Rajiv Rangila After He Allegedly Flees India

The Delhi High Court's order does not determine the merits of the allegations but allows the criminal proceedings against Dr. Poonam Mishra to continue after finding sufficient prosecution material to warrant a trial. With the petition dismissed, the allegations against the doctor will now be examined during trial, where the prosecution will be required to establish its case before the court.

The case has drawn attention to compliance with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, particularly regarding consent, age verification, and mandatory reporting when treating minors.

The trial court will determine the case based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.

(Rh/TP/MSM)