IMPORTANT POINT
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 prosecution.

ORDER :

The 2 ^nd accused in S.C.No.495/2020 on the files of Special Court for the trial of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (`POCSO Act’ for short), Hosdurg, has filed this Crl.M.C under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the relief to quash Annexure A1 final report in SC.495 of 2020 pending before Fast Track Special Court, (POCSO Act Cases), Hosdurg, against the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the available records including the case diary produced by the learned Public Prosecutor. Also gone through the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. In the instant case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 376(2)(f) and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short) as well as under Sections 6, 6(1) r/w 5(l), 5(n), 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act and under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (`J.J Act’ for short) by the 1 ^st accused, who alleged to have subjected the minor victim to repeated sexual intercourse. The specific allegation against the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 2 ^nd accused, is that the 2 ^nd accused (doctor), who had examined the victim, though came to know about the pregnancy of the minor victim, failed to report the same to the police in tune with the mandate of Section 19(1) of POCSO Act and also had conducted abortion of the victim without consent. On this premise, prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 21 r/w 19 of the POCSO Act as well as under Sections 312 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short) by the 2 ^nd accused.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that none of the offences would get attracted against the petitioner and he pointed out that when the victim was produced before the petitioner, the victim and her parents (who accompanied her) informed the Doctor that she was a married lady, attained majority and the age was reported as 18 years. Therefore, the Doctor had no occasion to see the case of the victim as one under the POCSO Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, regarding the abortion/miscarriage also, the victim reached the hospital with profused bleeding and with symptoms of miscarriage and the doctor practically done the same to save her life and the doctor in no way caused abortion voluntarily and that she caused miscarriage in good faith to save the life of the victim and there was consent of the victim, who reported to be a major at the time of consultation. Further her parents also consented the same with a view to save her life. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed decision of the Madras High Court reported in [MANU/TN/6918/2024], [ Jenbagalakshmi v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. , where there was allegation against a medical practitioner that he had committed offence under Sections 5(i), 5(j)(ii), 6(1) and 21(1) of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (`POCSO Act’ for short) and Section 312 of IPC and in the said decision, on similar facts, the Madras High Court quashed prosecution against the doctor. Another decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.NO.3694 of 2023 dated 27.03.2024 also placed in support of the same allegation, where the Karnataka High Court followed the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court reported in [(2018) 18 SCC 292 : 2018 (10) SCJ 583 : AIR 2018 SC 4654 : MANU/SC/0830/2018 : 2018 (3) KLT 934 : 2018(2) ALD(Crl.) 960 (SC) : 2019 (106) ACC 352], Tessy Jose & Ors. v. State of Kerala , and quashed the prosecution against the doctor. The facts of the case in Tessy Jose & Ors. v. State of Kerala (supra), is that the 1 ^st accused had raped the victim when she was a minor in t