SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 2025:UHC:268 C528 No.970 of 2024 Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel, for the applicant. 2. Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand/1. 3. Mr. Shivam Rana, learned counsel, for the respondent no.2. 4. By means of the present C528 Application, the applicant has put a challenge to the cognizance order dated 24.10.2024, as well as the order dated 20.11.2024, passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, in Session Trial No.37 of 2024, “State Vs. Raman Prasad Chamoli and others”, and the entire proceeding of the aforesaid trial, which has been arising out of an FIR No.24 of 2024, dated 17.08.2024, registered with Police Station Badkot, District Uttarkashi. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the owner of the medical facility where treatment was given to the victim. He further stated that the victim was rushed to her hospital as she was having bleeding, and prima facie it was appeared that she already had suffered miscarriage. After providing adequate treatment she was discharged. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that it is pertinent to note that the victim was accompanied by her mother. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that no offence under Section 313 of IPC, is made out against the applicant as only treatment for bleeding was given and no miscarriage/abortion took place in applicant’s health care facility. He further contends that inordinate delay in lodging the FIR raises serious doubts in prosecution story. 7. Per contra learned State Counsel submits that this is a heinous crime as the age of the girl is only 14 years, and she was having six months pregnancy. The applicant/accused deserves no leniency, and she has to face the trial. 8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, and after considering the record of the case, it transpires that the offence is of serious and grave in nature. More so, when the victim is of a tender age of 14 years and was six months pregnant, the accused/applicant ought to face the trial. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are factual matrix of the case of the defence that can only be proved during trial by evidence. This Court while hearing the C528 application cannot embank upon the inquiry of the disputed facts. This case does not fall in the rarest of rare category to invoke Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 9. In the opinion of this Court, this is a heinous crime and no interference is required in the matter. 10. Consequently, the C528 application is here dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.01.2025 NR/