The Delhi High Court has declined to quash criminal proceedings against a doctor accused of performing the medical termination of a minor girl's pregnancy without allegedly complying with mandatory legal requirements under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court clarified that it was not deciding the doctor's guilt but only examining whether the material collected during the investigation disclosed a prima facie case warranting trial.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Dr. Poonam Mishra, who challenged two trial court orders one directing further investigation and another taking cognizance of offences against her. The case arose from an FIR registered in 2019 concerning allegations that a minor girl had been sexually assaulted and her pregnancy was subsequently terminated.
Initially, the investigating agency did not treat the doctor as an accused. However, after the prosecutrix filed a protest petition alleging irregularities in the abortion procedure and concealment of her age, the trial court ordered further investigation. A supplementary chargesheet later alleged that the doctor had failed to verify the girl's age, had not completed mandatory statutory forms, and had not reported the matter to the police despite allegedly being aware that the girl was a minor.
Court's Observations
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav extensively examined the statutory scheme of the MTP Act as it existed in 2019. The Court observed that termination of a minor's pregnancy requires written consent from the guardian and that the prescribed statutory forms are not mere procedural formalities but legal safeguards.
The Bench observed:
“The MTP Act was not enacted to create an unqualified license to terminate pregnancy on demand.”
The Court further noted that verification of a patient's age is foundational before performing a medical termination where legal consequences depend upon whether the patient is a minor. It held that if the prosecution's allegations are ultimately proved, failure to verify age and obtain guardian consent could not be treated as a simple paperwork lapse.
Addressing the doctor's argument that she believed the patient was an adult, the Court said this defence could only be examined during trial because the supplementary chargesheet contained a specific allegation that the victim's actual date of birth had been disclosed before the procedure and that her recorded age was allegedly altered. Whether that allegation is true, the Court said, is a matter of evidence.
The Bench also emphasised the mandatory reporting obligation under Section 19 of the POCSO Act where a person has knowledge of an offence involving a child.
Decision
Rejecting the petition, the High Court held that the trial court's direction for further investigation was legally valid and did not predetermine the outcome of the investigation. It further found that the supplementary investigation disclosed sufficient material to justify criminal proceedings at this preliminary stage.
"The prosecution materials would show that the alleged offence against the petitioner is made out from the prosecution records, warranting trial," the Court observed while clarifying that these findings are limited to deciding whether a prima facie case exists and should not influence the trial on merits.
Accordingly, the petition seeking quashing of the proceedings was dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: Dr. Poonam Mishra v. State of NCT of Delhi & Another
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 2900/2021 and CRL.M.A. 18263/2021
Judge: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Decision Date: 05 August 2026
-300x169.webp)
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
