Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. Murali Shankar, J.
Dr. Jenbagalakshmi – Petitioner
versus
State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. – Respondents
Crl. O.P. (MD) No.15947 of 2024 and Crl. M.P. (MD) No.10056 of 2024
Decided on 20.12.2024
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 – Section 3 – Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6(1) and 21(1) read with Section 312 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Concealment of information about sexual abuse of minor girl – Criminal prosecution of Doctor (Petitioner) – There is no evidence implicating accused for offence under Sections 19 and 21 of POCSO Act – Section 3 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 provides immunity to registered medical practitioners from prosecution under Indian Penal Code or any other law – This immunity applies when a pregnancy is terminated in accordance with Act’s provisions – Ingredients of Section 312 IPC are not met against petitioner – Permitting prosecution would be unnecessary, unwarranted and amount to abuse of process of law – A 70 year old Senior Doctor underwent multiple enquiries including police investigation and was compelled to obtain anticipatory bail before Sessions Court – Investigating Officer registered FIR solely based on respondent’s hearsay statement, without conducting preliminary enquiry – Such treatment of medical professionals may discourage them from taking necessary risk to save lives, instead adopting a “play-it-safe” approach, ultimately harming patient care – FIR is liable to be quashed against petitioner.(Paras 19, 30, 32 and 33)
Result: Criminal Original Petition allowed.
ORDER
“Medical profession is a noble profession, dedicated to the service of humanity.
A Doctor’s reputation is a valuable asset, any false or malicious complaint can cause irreparable harm to their reputation and career.”
—Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 528 B.N.S.S., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.1 of 2024 pending on the file of the All Women Police Station, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli District and quash the same as against the petitioner.
2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.1 of 2024 on 28.02.2024 against three persons including the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6(1) and 21(1) of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter called as ‘POCSO Act’) and Section 312 IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl is the younger sister of the second respondent/defacto complainant, that the victim girl, who was aged 17 years, was admitted in Trichy Government Hospital by her maternal aunt Meenakshi and she had called the second respondent to come to Trichy Government Hospital, that when the second respondent had gone to the hospital, it was informed by her maternal aunt that the victim girl was pregnant as she was having a relationship with one Ramkumar, that the maternal aunt, in order to abort the fetus, had taken the victim girl to Sudharsana Hospital at Woraiyur on 24.02.2024 and scan was taken and they came to know that she was 9 weeks pregnant then and that on 26.02.2024, the victim girl was brought to Sudharsana Hospital by her maternal aunt to abort the fetus and at the time of abortion, since the victim girl failed to co-operate, there was profuse bleeding, she was taken to Trichy Government Hospital on 27.02.2024 at about 02.00 a.m. in a serious condition and hence, the second respondent has lodged a complaint.
4. It is not in dispute that the victim girl, despite treatment, died at Trichy Government Hospital.
5. It is pertinent to mention that one Ramkumar, who allegedly made the victim girl pregnant, was made as first accused and the maternal aunt Meenakshi, who had accompanied the victim girl to the hospitals, was made as second accused and that the Senior Doctor / Gynecologist at Sudharsana Hospital, the petitioner herein was named as third accused.
6. The case of the petitioner/third accused is that the victim girl visited the petitioner’s hospital on 24.02.2024 as out-patient along with her maternal aunt Meenakshi with a complaint of abdominal pain and delayed periods, that the petitioner, based on the symptoms informed by the victim girl, instructed her to take a blood test and an abdominal ultrasound scan, that scan report revealed that the victim girl was 9 weeks pregnant and hence, the petitioner enquired about her age and martial status, that the victim girl revealed that she was 18 years old and she is unmarried, that the victim girl also informed that her parents were already dead and she is studying paramedical course at Gandhigram, Dindigul and is staying in college hostel, that the victim girl and her maternal aunt insisted on getting a medical termination of the pregnancy but the petitioner refused to do the same and informed them that she will have to report it to the police and to the District Collector as the victim girl was unmarried, that the victim girl’s maternal aunt along with the victim girl had left the hospital without even informing or collecting the blood test report, that the victim girl and her maternal aunt had again visited the petitioner’s hospital on 26.02.2024 in the early hours around 05.45 a.m. with complaints of dizziness and weakness, that the blood report revealed that the victim girl had severe anaemia with hemoglobin as low as 6.8 grms/dl which is below par, that the petitioner advised the victim girl to approach the Government Medical C
It is high time for society to preserve sanctity of medical profession and to uphold dignity of Doctors to ensure continued provision of exceptional care, innovation and dedication to saving lives.
Medical practitioners cannot be held liable under the POCSO Act without substantial evidence proving knowledge of the victim's age and alleged crimes. Quashing of FIR emphasizes protection against fa....
A doctor cannot be held criminally liable under the POCSO Act for failing to report a minor's pregnancy if the victim misrepresents her age as 18 years, and mere suspicion is insufficient for prosecu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for compliance with the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and the protection afforded to medical practitioners for ac....
Prompt and Proper Reporting – Prompt and proper reporting of the commission of offence under the POCSO Act is of utmost importance and its failure on coming to know about the commission of any offenc....
The court ruled that evidence did not establish medical negligence by the appellant, who acted in good faith under the MTP Act, leading to acquittal under Section 312 of IPC while being previously ac....
Criminal liability under the POCSO Act requires a deliberate omission to report a crime, which was not established in this case.
Criminal proceedings against doctor quashed absent gross negligence proof and where inquiry report confirms no involvement in treatment; high threshold per established guidelines required for medical....
The necessity of obtaining expert medical opinion before taking cognizance against a doctor in cases of alleged medical negligence is paramount to avoid wrongful prosecution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
