Point of law: Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act requires that any person, including a child, who has knowledge of the commission of an offence punishable under the POCSO Act, or an apprehension that such an offence may be committed, is mandatorily required to provide information to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner/accused No.8 is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.44 of 2023 arising out of Crime No.1 of 2023 of Belthangady Police Station 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 (‘the Act’ for short) and Sections 376, 376(2)(h), 376(2)(n), 376(3), 201, 313 and 34 of the IPC, insofar as it concerns the petitioner, it is under Section 21 of the Act.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief germane are as follows:-

The petitioner, a doctor by profession, having taken voluntary retirement from service now runs a hospital in the name and style of “Prashanthi Hospital” at Laxmisha Nagara, Chikkamagaluru. The incident that triggers registration of crime is that on 17-12-2022 between 13:00 to 14:00 hours, the 2nd respondent/victim comes to the hospital owned by the petitioner, seeking treatment. The victim is said to have entered the hospital with severe bleeding with decreased vitals and her condition was very serious due to such heavy bleeding. 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. The persons who accompanied the victim claimed to be her parents. It is the averment of the petitioner in the petition that considering the condition, the patient was immediately admitted to the hospital and was put on oxygen, IV fluids etc. The conservative treatment improved the vitals of the victim. She was still unstable and there was no danger to her life. The petitioner is said to have performed medical termination of pregnancy which was incomplete, leaving the placenta behind. On the victim being unstable, further examination was conducted and it was noticed that the bleeding was also seen from outside and, therefore appropriate procedure was performed to retain the placenta as further expulsion would have created danger to the life of the victim. After the victim became stable, which is after about 2 days of such admission, the victim was discharged in the morning hours and was taken by the people, said to be her relatives. After about one month of the said incident, the crime comes to be registered in Crime No.1 of 2023 before the Belthangadi Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner was not arrayed as accused at that point in time.

3. Investigation is conducted by the jurisdictional Police and the result of such investigation was issuance of a notice to the petitioner on 17-02-2023, two months after the aforesaid incident. The allegation against the petitioner was 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. Filing of the charge sheet is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Heard Sri P.P.Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

5. The learned senior counsel would contend with vehemence 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 is the sub