S.21 POCSO Act | Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Gynaecologist For Failure To Report Sexual Assault On Minor

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition moved by a Gynaecologist to quash a case registered against him under Section 21 of the POCSO Act for failure to report the incident of sexual assault on a minor.

Section 19 of POCSO Act mandates every person who has knowledge that sexual assault on a minor has been committed, to report it to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police. Failure to do so is punishable under Section 21 with six months imprisonment.

The Petitioner in this case allegedly terminates the minor victim's pregnancy and did not report the same to the police. In this backdrop, a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed,

“Merely because it (punishment) 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.”

The petitioner runs a Hospital in Chikkamagaluru where the victim came seeking treatment. The companions along with the victim informed the petitioner that she had taken some tablets for abortion 2 to 3 days back and that has caused severe bleeding. Following which the petitioner is said to have performed medical termination of pregnancy. The victim was then discharged and was taken by the people, said to be her relatives. After about one month of the said incident, the crime came to be registered.

Initially, the petitioner was not arrayed as accused, however, on investigation petitioner was booked under Section 21 of the Act, for failing to report the incident. After issuance of notice and recording of statement of the petitioner a charge sheet came to be filed.

The primary contention raised by the petitioner was that the physical appearance of the victim was such that, it could be believed that she was more than 18 years old and, therefore, without going into further details the petitioner performed the surgery and protected the patient/victim.

Rejecting this defence the bench said “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.”

It added “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.”

Court said several cases of heinous offences committed under the Act go unnoticed due to the lack of information, as it is suppressed by the concerned. Therefore, non-reporting snowballs into a serious offence.

“Reporting of offences under the Act, particularly by doctors, requires strict compliance failing which, the offender committing offence arising out of consensual sexual activity or a rape or sexual abuse on a child will get away from the clutches of law, which would defeat the very object of promulgation of the Act as the provision is one of those steps towards preventive measures of child abuses,” it observed.

It directed the State to ensure strict compliance with Section 19 and reporting of offences particularly by doctors who indulge in medical termination of pregnancy of minors in extenuating circumstances.

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Dr. Chandrashekar T B And State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8789 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 208

Date of Order: 02-06-2023

Appearance: Senior Advocate P P Hegde for Advocate Venkatesh Somareddi for petitioner.

HCGP Mahesh Shetty for respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order