The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an FIR against a Gynaecologist for an offence under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 21 of the Act. He had allegedly terminated a minor victim’s pregnancy violating the mandate of reporting a sexual offence to the local police or enumerated Authority under the relevant section of the Act.

Stressing the importance of timely reporting of such incidents, the Court held, "It is in public domain that several cases of heinous offences committed under the Act go unnoticed due to the lack of information, as it is suppressed by the concerned. But, the fact is that, the victims who are subjected to such assault, by the accused, except in justifiable cases, get away by lack of reporting. Therefore, non-reporting snowballs into a serious offence."

The primary defence of the petitioner- Gynaecologist was that he had no knowledge that the victim was only 12 years and 11 months at the time.

Noting that the petitioner’s defence of ignorance is a matter of trial, a bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “…Though the offence under Section 21 of the Act attracts imprisonment for six months, the offence by the very nature is serious. Merely because it is six months, it cannot be said that the petitioner should be left off the hook at this stage. Being a responsible doctor having close two score years of service as a Gynaecologist, who ought to have been cautious and informed the concerned, as obtaining under Section 19 of the Act. Having not done so, is a serious dereliction”.

Section 19 of the POCSO Act makes reporting an offence under the Act to the local Police or any other enumerated Authority while Section 21 of the Act provides for punishment for failure to report or record a case.

In the present matter, the petitioner-Gynaecologist ran Prashanthi Hospital at Laxmisha Nagara, Chikkamagaluru.

The victim along with some companions alleging to be her parents approached the petitioner informing that she had taken some tablets for abortion 2 to 3 days back and that has caused severe bleeding. Pursuant to which the petitioner is said to have performed medical termination of pregnancy.

Subsequently, after a month of the incident, an FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 5(J)(II), 5(L), 5(Q), 6 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 376, 376(2)(h), 376(2)(n), 376(3), 201, 313 and 34 of the IPC against the perpetrators. However, the petitioner was not arrayed as accused at that point in time

Upon investigation, after two months the Police issued notice to the petitioner, for performing medical termination of pregnancy on the victim who was then 12 years and 11 months old and had been subjected to sexual activity.

The offence against the petitioner, in particular was the one punishable under Section 21 of the Act.

Therefore, after considering the relevant submissions and contentions of both parties, the bench noted, “I decline to accept the said defence. The petitioner claims to be Gynaecologist having 35 years of practice. It is highly improbable that the petitioner at the very look of the patient did not get to know that the victim was of tender age of 12 years and 11 months and had been subjected to sexual intercourse as she had become pregnant. Mere statement or wearing a saree at the time the victim entered the hospital are all a matter of evidence and trial, which this Court at this stage in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC would not consider”.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Dr Chandrashekar T.B. v. State of Karnataka

Click here to read/download the Order




Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Agatha Shukla