JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred for quashing the Special Court Case No.05/2018 pending before the Court of Learned Special Judge under protection of children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act) arising out of Darjeeling Sadar Women Police Station Case No.01/2018 dated 2.3.2018 under Sections 6/17 of the POCSO Act and added Sections 314/315 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(3) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

2. The petitioner contended that the petitioner is the senior most Gynecologist in the District Hospital, Darjeeling and he tried to save the life of a minor girl aged about twelve years by aborting her in the District hospital having due consent of her relative, who got pregnant due to commission of rape by one of her close relative.

3. One Mousam Rai, who is the uncle of the victim girl lodged a written complaint on 2.3.2018 alleging that he went to Delhi due to economic/financial hardship, leaving the victim girl in the custody of his sister and brother-in-law. Due to continuous rape committed on the victim girl by his brother-in-law, Mr. Sishan Rai, the victim girl became pregnant and she was carrying for almost six months. When defacto complainant came to learn about the incident he returned immediately. He reached Darjeeling on 28.02.2018 and after return he came to know that his sister and brother-in-law consulted the doctor and it was alleged that the complainant thereafter met the doctor and came to learn that the victim child may loss her life unless she is aborted immediately and on hearing the caution made by doctor and also seeing the condition of the victim, he signed a paper. However, the complainant requested the police to take action against the accused persons and punish them as per the provision of law. The said complaint was received by Sadar Women Police Station, Darjeeling on 2.3.2018.

4. During investigation it revealed that the victim was admitted at District Hospital, Darjeeling on 2.3.2018 and was discharged from the Hospital on 7.3.2018 and she was aborted there. Subsequently, she was kept under the safe custody of Childrens’ Home, Darjeeling.

5. During investigation it further appeared that the victim girl was taken at private clinic of one Dr. N. K. Ghorai (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) by the wife of the principal accused, Chandrika Rai on 28.2.2018, and petitioner confirmed about a live foetus in the womb of the child and opined for the termination of foetus. On 2.3.2018 the victim was admitted under the petitioner at Sadar Hospital where the live feotus in the womb of the victim girl was aborted by the petitioner.

6. It is alleged by a letter issued by the Superintendent of District Hospital, Darjeeling vide Memo No. 64/1(4) supdt. dated 07.03.2018, addressed to the Inspector-in-Charge, Sadar Police Station, Darjeeling, that the petitioner had conducted an illegal abortion on the victim and that the pregnancy was more than twelve weeks duration and the petitioner did not consult with other Medical Officers for forming an opinion before conducting the abortion and on the basis of said information a General Diary No. 319/18 was recorded in the Sadar Women Police Station, Darjeeling.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the police wrongly added Sections 314/315 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(3) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and implicated the present petitioner falsely along with the principal accused persons.

8. Mr. Rabindra Nath Bag, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the provisions laid down in Section 6 of the POCSO Act, is not at all applicable to the petitioner as no allegation of aggravated penetrative sexual assault has been attributed against the petitioner. The petitioner saved the life of the victim girl who became pregnant for more than six months due to rape committed by her close relative. The petitioner