2025:UHC:7048 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No.1428 of 2022 11th August, 2025 Manvi ……….Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……….Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the applicant, through video conferencing. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, D.A.G. with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, B.H. for the State. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.2, through video conferencing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This C482 application is filed by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 28.04.2022 as well as Charge Sheet dated 23.08.2021 and further to set aside Special Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2022, State vs. Dr. Manvi under Sections 376, 120, 420 and 197 of IPC and Section 21 POCSO registered at Police Station Nehru Colony, District Dehradun, pending in the Court’s Ld Special Judge POCSO/ADJ, Dehradun. 2. Facts of the prosecution story in a nutshell are that it has been alleged through District Child Welfare Committee the informant got to know about an incident which occurred on 19.03.2021 at Rudraya Hospital regarding physical assault upon the alleged victim aged about 13 years by one Sandeep, aged about 17 years, which resulted in pregnancy of the said victim who thereby delivered a baby and the applicant by forging the documents delivered the baby and handed it over to one 1 2025:UHC:7048 Swadesh, wife of Deepak Kumar on 19.03.2021. It has been alleged against the applicant that she illegally delivered the said child and issued forged birth certificate and also conspirated with Sandeep to rape the victim. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a well known practicing doctor in Rudraya Hospital and has good reputation in public. He submits that she has been falsely roped in the present case and that the alleged victim was admitted in the said hospital on 19.03.2021 through her mother and the doctor was informed that she is 20 years of age. He further submits that the applicant upon her duty as a responsible and professional doctor and was not aware of the victim’s actual age. He also submits that the documents regarding the birth of the child was prepared by her in good faith. When she got to know about the alleged crime, she fully cooperated with the investigation officer and provided entire medical records to the investigating officer. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that even if the allegations in the FIR are admitted for a moment, offences under Section 376 read with 120 IPC cannot be made out against her as the alleged rape would have happened around nine months ago and at that moment of time, the applicant did not even know the victim or the alleged assaulter. He also submits that as the applicant made the birth certificate in good faith, therefore, she cannot be charged with section 420 and 197 IPC and as she had no knowledge about the alleged incident and the actual age of the victim, section 21 of POCSO cannot be alleged against her. Learned counsel for the applicant 2 2025:UHC:7048 further submits that the investigation officer without proper investigation has submitted the charge sheet against the applicant and the learned court has in furtherance without application of judicial mind has taken cognizance against the applicant and issued the impugned summons. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submits that the investigating officer after a detailed investigation and after recording the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and after going through the DNA report has rightly submitted the charge sheet against the applicant and the learned court has on the basis of detailed investigation and the charge sheet has rightly issued summons against the applicant. 6. Respondent no.2 in his counter affidavit submits that he is the state coordinator of Bachpan Bachao Andolan of Noble Laureate Kailash Satyarthi and is actively engaged in protecting children’s right. He submits that he is the informant of the FIR and lodged the FIR when he got to know about the alleged rape incident and forgery committed by the applicant. He further submits that it is a settled law that evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the High Court except in exceptional circumstances. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the bare perusal of the FIR and other material available on record go on to show that the applicant could not in any circumstance have known, the victim or the assaulter at the alleged date of incident of rape, therefore, she could not have been charged under 3 2025:UHC:7048 section 376 read with 120 IPC, therefore, this Court deems it fit that proceedings under these sections be immediately quashed to prevent abuse of process of law and to further the ends of justice. But as the other charges framed against the applicant involve disputed set of facts the truth of which can only be found out by a detailed trial, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice, the applicant is subjected to a trial by the trial court for the remaining offences. 8. Accordingly the present C482 application is hereby partly allowed. The impugned summoning order is quashed to the extent of Sections 376, 120 IPC qua the applicant. The proceedings against the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 120 IPC are hereby quashed. However, so far as the offence under Sections 420, 197 IPC and 21 of POCSO Act are concerned, the applicant would face trial under said sections. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.08.2025 Nahid 4