# M Through Her Guardian (Father) Resident Of Village Kulesara v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 350 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-03-10 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 8991 of 2026 - **Bench:** Atul Sreedharan, Siddharth Nandan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-through-her-guardian-father-resident-of-village-kulesara-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54371 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 28. Therefore, without interfering with impugned order which is justified since procedure prescribed under Section 57 and 58 of the Act, 1973 was followed and admittedly, some of properties of college were diverted as well as audit inspection was not allowed and writ petition is disposed of with a direction that within two months, an audit inspection shall be conducted and petitioners may be provided an opportunity to explain under what circumstances, they have sold land to private respondents and subsequently within four months, impugned order shall be reviewed so much as that whether it be withdrawn or extended. ---------- (2026) 3 ILRA 350 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J. THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. Writ C No. 8991 of 2026 M Through Her Guardian (Father) Resident Of Village Kulesara ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to termination of pregnancy of a minor prosecutrix of rape carrying pregnancy arising out of alleged offence under S. 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and consequential directions regarding continuation of pregnancy, adoption of the child and preservation of evidence for DNA profiling. (Paras 3,5,6) Headnotes Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - S. 69 - Minor prosecutrix alleging rape sought termination of pregnancy at fifth month stage - Medical Board constituted by Court reported that prosecutrix voluntarily consented to continue pregnancy till delivery subject to immediate adoption of child and was not suffering from psychological distress - Writ petition disposed of with directions to State to facilitate adoption immediately after birth in accordance with law. (Paras 3,4,5,6) Juvenile Justice framework governing adoption - Court directed State authorities to ensure that prosecutrix is not compelled even for a single day to bear mental pressure of tending to infant after delivery and to take all necessary steps for facilitating adoption immediately upon birth of child. (Para 6) Criminal procedure relating to investigation and forensic evidence - Court directed collection of blood sample of newborn child in presence of Investigating Officer for DNA profiling with accused and prosecutrix and further directed that forensic report be annexed with charge-sheet before trial court. (Para 7) Right to privacy of prosecutrix - Identity of prosecutrix being mother of child given in adoption directed to be masked so as to remain unknown and privacy protected. (Para 8) Held: The Medical Board comprising specialists in Psychiatry and Obstetrics and Gynecology found that the prosecutrix was agreeable to continue the pregnancy till onset of spontaneous labour followed by adoption and was not under psychological distress on the date of examination - in view thereof State was directed to ensure immediate facilitation of adoption upon delivery in accordance with applicable law and further to ensure that prosecutrix is not compelled even for a single day to bear mental pressure of tending to the infant 3 All. M Through Her Guardian (Father) Resident Of Village Kulesara Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 351 - State was also directed to collect blood sample of newborn child in presence of Investigating Officer and forward the same along with blood samples of accused and prosecutrix for DNA profiling so that report may accompany charge-sheet before trial court - identity of prosecutrix was directed to be masked protecting her privacy and writ petition was disposed of accordingly. (Paras 4,5,6,7,8,10) (E-7) Case Law Cited A (Mother of X) Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2024) 5 SCR 470 List of Acts Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 List of Keywords rape prosecutrix; termination of pregnancy; minor victim; false promise of marriage; medical board; psychological distress; adoption; DNA profiling; privacy of prosecutrix; blood sample; charge sheet; writ petition. Case Arising From ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Against the judgment and order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ C No. 8991 of 2026 disposing of the writ petition filed by the prosecutrix seeking termination of pregnancy arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 2026 registered under S. 69 of B.N.S. at Police Station Ecotech-III, District Gautam Budh Nagar. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Not mentioned in the judgment text. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Shubra Singh, Standing Counsel. (Delivered by Hon'ble Atul Sreedharan, J. & Hon'ble Siddharth Nandan, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shubra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed through 'M', a prosecutrix of rape through her guardian father. This court feels it essential not to give any further details of the petitioner on account of the nature of the case. 3. According to the petitioner, she was a victim of rape on account of which an F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 45 of 2026 was registered by the father of the petitioner on 25.01.2026 at about 21:02 Hrs, under Section 69 of B.N.S. at Police Station- Ecotech-III, District- Gautam Budh Nagar. The prosecutrix stated to have been enticed by the accused to establish sexual relationship with her and on the false promise of marriage continued to the relationship. Resultantly, the prosecutrix became quick with child when she was about 16.5 years old. The first act in the offence apparently seems to have been committed sometime in September, 2025 and it remained hidden till such time the prosecutrix revealed about the incident in the month of January, 2026, by which time she was already into the 5th month of her pregnancy. The prayer in the present petition is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner. On the last date of hearing, this court vide its order dated 27.02.2026 had directed the 352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES constitution of a medical board by the Principal of the Government Institute of Medical Sciences, which include a Psychiatrist and a Clinical Psychologist to the counsel for the petitioner and the parents, separately if so required and thereafter hold a joint session. The District Magistrate of Gautam Budh Nagar was also directed to be a part of the team so that in case the petitioner agrees to carry the pregnancy to full term and thereafter put up the child for adoption as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'A' (Mother of 'X') Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2024 5 SCR 470. 4. Today, the report of the Government Institute of Medical Sciences dated 06.03.2026 has been placed before this court in a sealed cover which has been opened by the Bench Secretary and handed over to the court wherein it is disclosed that a five-member team of doctors which included the Associate Professor and Head of Psychiatry and the Professor and Head of Obstetrics and Gynecology interacted with the prosecutrix who gave her consent to continue the pregnancy till delivery leading to the child birth but on the condition that the child shall be put up for adoption immediately and that she does not want to bear the emotional burden of the same. The report also discloses that the prosecutrix was interviewed for psychological distress which the prosecutrix does not suffer from. 5. The final opinion given by the Board was that the prosecutrix is agreeable to continue the pregnancy till onset of spontaneous labour followed by adoption and was not under psychological distress on the date she was examined. 6. Under the circumstances, in view of the aforementioned report of the Board, this court request the State to ensure that as desired by the prosecutrix, that immediately upon the delivery of child, the State shall take all necessary steps in accordance with the applicable law to facilitate the exercise of adoption. It shall also ensure that the prosecutrix is not compelled even for a single day to have the mental pressure of having to tend for the infant. 7. It is also imperative to direct the State herein to take a blood sample of the new born child and hand the same over to the Investigating Officer of the case (as told by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the investigation is still in progress) so that the same is available for DNA profiling of the new born infant with that of the accused and the prosecutrix. The blood sample shall be collected in the presence of the I.O.in accordance with law and handed over to the I.O., who shall be informed prior in point of time about the entire exercise. Thereafter the I.O. shall send the said sample along with the blood samples of the accused and the prosecutrix to the F.S.L. Department for DNA profiling, the report of which shall be annexed along with the charge sheet at the time of filing the same before the trial court. 8. The identity of the prosecutrix, being the mother of the child given up in adoption, shall be masked so that the same remains unknown protecting the privacy of the prosecutrix. 9. It is also essential to mention here that the report of the Board was received in a sealed cover which was opened by the Bench Secretary and handed over to the court and which, after perusal, has been resealed and placed on record. 3 All. Sufiyakhatoon & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 353 10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. ---------- (2026) 3 ILRA 353 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 10.03.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. THE HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. Writ C No. 9806 of 2024 Sufiyakhatoon & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to whether disputed questions of fact regarding title and possessory rights over the land in question can be adjudicated by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and whether the transfer dated 31.08.1950 was void in view of S. 23 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. (Paras 20-46) Headnotes Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Disputed questions of title and possession - Maintainability - Petitioners' claim of title and possession over land in question highly disputed - Held, disputed questions of fact regarding possession and title of property cannot be examined by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Appropriate remedy is civil suit. (Paras 39, 44, 45, 46) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - S. 23(1)(a) - Interpretation - Transfer after 01.07.1948 - Effect of - Held, S. 23(1)(a) merely bars recognition of transfer for purposes of assessing rehabilitation grant payable to intermediary - Provision does not render transfer void. (Paras 27-31) U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 - Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat - Consideration of objections pursuant to directions issued in earlier writ petition - Jurisdiction - Held, respondent no.5 was bound to decide objections/reply submitted by petitioners regarding claim of title and right over land in question - Findings recorded not binding upon competent civil court adjudicating title dispute. (Paras 21-23) Abadi land - Claim of title based on receipt dated 31.08.1950 - Revenue records not corroborating alleged transfer - Photographs and documents insufficient to establish title or continuous possession - Held, petitioners failed to establish claim of title and possession for last 74 years by cogent and convincing evidence. (Paras 34-38, 45) Tax receipt - Mere deposit of tax - Effect of - Held, mere deposit of tax in respect of property does not confer title or right over property in question. (Para 18) Held: Respondent No.5, Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Belhara, District Barabanki, pursuant to the directions issued by the writ court in Writ-C No.5615 of 2024, was bound to consider and decide the objections/reply submitted by the petitioners regarding their claim of title and right over the land in question - Findings recorded by respondent No.5 while passing the order dated 06.08.2024 cannot be construed to mean that respondent No.5 assumed the role of a civil court so as to adjudicate the title dispute - Such findings are not binding upon a court of competent jurisdiction adjudicating the title suit. (Paras 21-23)