JUDGMENT : B. PUGALENDHI, J. Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to terminate the unwanted pregnancy of the petitioner's daughter, minor T. Nandhini, aged about 14 years, born on 14.12.2006, as per the recommendation of the fourth respondent in No. 162/Ma.Ku.Pa.A/2020, dated 25.06.2020, caused due to the crime committed against her in Crime No. 3 of 2020, dated 12.06.2020, u/s. 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 25.06.2020, within a stipulated time limit. 1. The petitioner's daughter (Minor) T. Nandhini is a victim in Crime No. 3 of 2020 on the file of the seventh respondent Police registered for the offence under Sections 4(2), 5(i), 5(j)(ii), 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 506(i) IPC. According to the petitioner, due to the offence committed upon his minor daughter, she got pregnant and she is now 5½ months pregnant. Since the victim is a Minor girl, aged about 14 years, the petitioner has moved the authorities to terminate the pregnancy of his daughter, as it would affect her both physically and mentally. Alleging inaction on the part of the authorities, he has filed the instant writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent/Dean, Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital, Thanjavur, to terminate the pregnancy of his daughter. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner approached the District Child Protection Officer/fourth respondent and the victim was subjected for medical examination by Dr. Anju Padmasekar, Assistant Professor (Gynecologist), Government Hospital, Thanjavur. The Doctor, after examination, vide her report dated 20.06.2020, opined that the victim was 5½ months pregnant and in view of her physical and mental health condition, suggested for terminating the pregnancy. Based on this report, the District Child Protection Officer/fourth respondent has addressed a letter to the District Legal Services Authority, Thanjavur, requesting appropriate action, but there was no further progress. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, delay in taking any decision for terminating the pregnancy would affect the victim badly and therefore, prays for allowing this petition. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, delay in taking any decision for terminating the pregnancy would affect the victim badly and therefore, prays for allowing this petition. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (in short ‘Act’) deals with termination of pregnancy and the same is extracted as under: “3. When Pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), a registered medical practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence under that Code or under any other law for the time being in force, if any pregnancy is terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner: (a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twelve weeks if such medical practitioner is. (b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twelve weeks but does not exceed twenty weeks, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are, of opinion, formed in good faith, that: (i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury physical or mental health. (ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. (3) In determining whether the continuance of pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned in sub-section (2), account may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or reasonable foreseeable environment. (4) (a) No pregnancy of a woman, who has not attained the age of eighteen years, or, who, having attained the age of eighteen years, is a lunatic, shall be terminated except with the consent in writing of her guardian. (b) Save as otherwise provided in Cl. (a) no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman.” 5. Perusal of the above provision reveals that the termination of pregnancy is not permissible, if the length of pregnancy exceeds 20 weeks. However, Section 5 of the Act lays down exceptions to Section 3 and the same is extracted as under: “5. (a) no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman.” 5. Perusal of the above provision reveals that the termination of pregnancy is not permissible, if the length of pregnancy exceeds 20 weeks. However, Section 5 of the Act lays down exceptions to Section 3 and the same is extracted as under: “5. Sections 3 and 4 when not to apply - (1) The provisions of Section 4 and so much of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 as relate to the length of the pregnancy and the opinion of not less than two registered medical practitioners, shall not apply to the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner in a case where he is of opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of such pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman....” 6. The victim girl is of 14 years and as per Section 3(4)(a) of the Act, the pregnancy can be terminated on a written consent from her guardian. As per the report of Dr. Anju Padmasekar, Assistant Professor (Gynecologist), Government Hospital, Thanjavur, as on 20.06.2020, the petitioner's daughter was 5½ months pregnant and therefore, as on date, her length of pregnancy has exceeded 20 weeks. The Doctor, considering her physical and mental state, has also suggested for terminating the pregnancy of the victim as follows: “TAMIL” 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in more than one occasion, viz. in Z vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2018) 11 SCC 572 , X vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 14 SCC 382 and X and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2017) 3 SCC 458 , even though the length of pregnancy exceeds the statutory limit, has allowed the termination of pregnancy, if there are compelling reasons. In the present case on hand, the petitioner's daughter is admittedly a minor, aged about 14 years. She is a victim in Crime No. 3 of 2020 and the offence was committed upon her by the accused. It is also represented that she is a school going child, completed VIII standard and is due for IX standard. 8. In the present case on hand, the petitioner's daughter is admittedly a minor, aged about 14 years. She is a victim in Crime No. 3 of 2020 and the offence was committed upon her by the accused. It is also represented that she is a school going child, completed VIII standard and is due for IX standard. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the well being of the victim, this Court, without giving any room for further delay, directs the third respondent/Dean, Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital, Thanjavur District, to immediately form a Medical Board of not less than three Doctors, including a Gynecologist, a Psychiatrist and a Psychologist, to ascertain as to whether the termination of the pregnancy of the petitioner's daughter is necessary, as provided under Section 5 of the Act. If they give a opinion for terminating the pregnancy of the victim, the same shall be recorded and the termination procedure shall be effected forthwith. During the procedure, the Doctors shall ensure the safety of the victim. The samples of the foetus shall be preserved for carrying out medical tests, in the criminal case pending in Crime No. 3 of 2020. 9. With the above directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.