SORHAB ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is perhaps, one of the most unusual cases, which can enter the precincts of the High Court seeking to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The case, though not unique, is unusual and requires delicately balanced gender sensitive approach by the High Court.

(2.) Pursuant to an FIR lodged with Rangia police station on 16.12.2004, Rangia Police Station Case No. 467/2004 under Section 366 AIPC was registered against accused Pulu Thakuria, the case of the informant being, in brief, thus: While the informant's daughter, (hereinafter referred to as "Miss 'X'"), aged about 14 years and a student of Class:iX was, on 15.12.2004 at about 12.30P.M. ion her way to her school for appearing in her examination, she disappeared and further enquiry by the informant revealed that accused Pulu Thakuria had also disappeared from his house. During the course of investigation, on receiving information from the investigating agency, the police in the State ofUttar Pradesh recovered the girl from a house, which allegedly belongs to the brother of the accused. The accused aforementioned was also arrested and in course of time, a statement of Miss 'X' was recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, wherein she stated to the effect that accused had cohabitated with her. As a result of this cohabitation, Miss 'X' became pregnant and while she completed almost eight weeks of pregnancy, as detected by the dbctors, the informant filed a petition in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia, in connection with the case aforementioned seeking appropriate directions for termination of his said daughter's pregnancy. The said petition was rejected by order, dated 18.02.2005. The informant, then, filed another petition on 22.2.2005, for appropriate directions from the Court of learned SDJM, Rangia, in terms of Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1971"). The learned Court below considered the petition and rejected the same on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain such petition. It was, in such a situation, that the informant has, now, approached this Court seeking, as indicated hereinabove, issuance of appropriate writ(s).

(3.) I have heard Mr. BD Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. A. Thakur, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the State respondents, I have also heard Mr. S. Katoky, learned amicus curiae.