Non-reporting snowballs into serious offences, leads to dismissal of Doctor’s Plea: Karnataka High Court 

Non-reporting snowballs into serious offences, leads to dismissal of Doctor’s Plea: Karnataka High Court 

Recently Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has dismissed the plea of Doctor filed U/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding under POCSO Act observing therein that the Doctor should have been acted cautiously and reported the sexual harassment case to authorities.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

Petitioner is a Medical Practitioner who has taken VRS from Govt. Duty and started his own hospital. On 17.12.2022 victim was taken to Hospital of petitioner in a serious condition having profuse bleeding as she had taken tablets for abortion 2-3 days back. She was immediately admitted in the hospital and it was observed that there is an incomplete termination to pregnancy which led to the serious condition of victim. After 2 days she became stable and later discharged by the petitioner’s hospital.

After 1 month of the incident, a crime was registered and on 17-02-2023 notice was issued to petitioner with an allegation that he has performed the act of 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. After issuance of notice and recording of statement of the petitioner a charge sheet comes to be filed on 26-02-2023 for the aforesaid offences against other accused and against the petitioner/accused No.8 for the offence under Section 21 of the Act. This prompted the petitioner to file the present petition.

and three others had injured him with a Da at 3 PM near Lakshmipur Post Office.

CONTENTION OF PETITIONER

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made submission that the petitioner is a reputed doctor and had no intention to do anything that is alleged. Being a doctor, it was his bounden duty to treat the patient who came with severe bleeding. The victim was accompanied by three or four people, who had introduced themselves, as parents and husband of the victim and the age of the victim was given as 18 years and 3 months. It was the submission of the learned senior counsel that 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. He further said that It is his case that he had no knowledge of the victim, being less than 18 years old, and he should not be penalized by forcing him to undergo trial, in which eventually he would get acquitted and he therefore, seek quashment of entire proceedings.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE

The learned High Court Government Pleader refuted the submissions to contend that the petitioner being a doctor of sufficient standing, ought to have taken note of the fact that the victim was of a tender age and therefore all the submissions are a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean.

HON’BLE COURT’s OBSERVATIONS

The Hon’ble Court after perusing the records and hearing both the parties observed that,

 “Brief history of the discharge summary was that incomplete abortion, retention of placenta. Reasons are also indicated. In all the aforesaid three documents the age of the victim is quoted as 18 and years 3 months. The age of the victim is not on the basis of any record or document. The age of the victim is quoted as disclosed by the relatives/other accused who accompanied the victim. That too without any further clarification or verification the petitioner admits the child and performs the procedure. No doubt being a doctor it was his bounden duty to treat the patient in need of treatment but, the aftermath of the treatment is what becomes the fulcrum of the subject lis.

Section 19 clearly mandates that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure any person who has knowledge that such an offence has been committed shall report to the local Police or any other enumerated Authority under clause (a) without any loss of time. Therefore, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has not reported the offence to the jurisdictional police or any other Authority enumerated therein.

11. The defence of the petitioner is that he had no knowledge that the victim was only 12 years and 11 months. 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. The offence against others is horrendous. The information ought to have been given. Defence of ignorance by the petitioner is a matter of trial.”

The Hon’ble Court observed that non-reporting snowballs into serious offences.

Further, the Hon’ble court relied on Apex Court judgment in X .. v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321) on this aspect i.e. importance of reporting of offences, particularly by doctors and the seriousness attached to such reporting. The Hon’ble court also relied on Apex Court judgment observation in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER v. DR. MAROTI ((2023) 4 SCC 298) wherein the Hon’ble Court has directed that reporting of offences under Section 19 and punishment for those offences under Section 21 must be of strict compliance.

Lastly, before dismissing the present petition, the Hon’ble court observed that :-

“The Apex Court was considering a case of non-reporting by a doctor and directed strict compliance of Section 19 of the Act. Therefore, both the judgments of the Apex Court quoted supra would unmistakably direct that 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. Therefore, responsibility to report is cast on all stake holders.”

Case no.: Writ Petition No. 8789 of 2023

Order date: 02.06.2023