Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 590

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Dr. Pushpinder Banyal - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 156 of 2025
Decided On : 19-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kashmir Singh Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harjeet Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

The court upheld the validity of the FIR against the petitioner, emphasizing the obligation to report under the POCSO Act when aware of a minor's pregnancy.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 and 21 - Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Registration of FIR against petitioner for offences related to minor's pregnancy - Petitioner contended false implication and lack of evidence - Court held that the FIR prima facie establishes grounds for proceeding against petitioner based on victim's age and medical records. (Paras 2, 10, 12, 15, 19)

(B) Quashing of FIR - Principles applicable - The court reiterated that an FIR can be quashed if allegations do not constitute an offence, or if there is a legal bar to proceedings. (Paras 7, 8)

(C) Summoning Order - Requirement of reasons - It was clarified that a magistrate is not obligated to provide reasons for issuing summons, as long as there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. (Paras 12, 15)

Facts of the case:
The victim, a minor, was brought to the hospital for delivery. The petitioner, a medical officer, was implicated in the FIR based on the victim's age and the necessity to report under the POCSO Act.

Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient grounds for the FIR and the summoning order, dismissing the petitioner's claims of false implication and lack of evidence.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the FIR constituted an offence and the requirement of reasons in the summoning order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the FIR's allegations met the criteria for proceeding against the petitioner, emphasizing the doctor's duty to report under the POCSO Act.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

Informant Dr. Uday Bhanu made a complaint to the police that the victim was brought to Mandav Hospital on 06.05.2024 at about 5:40 p.m. for delivering a child. She was 17 years old as per the Jacha Bacha card issued to her. Her husband Kundan Lal was with her. She delivered a boy in the hospital. Since the victim was a minor, therefore, the police registered the F.I.R. for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (short IPC ) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (short POCSO) and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 . The police conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet before the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. after the completion of the investigation. The learned Trial Court ordered the summoning of the accused mentioned in the charge sheet vide order dated 30.08.2024.

2. Being aggrieved from the registration of the F.I.R., the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the summoning order, charge sheet and F.I.R. It has been asserted that a false case was made against the petitioner on the informant’s complaint. The victim disclosed that she was married to Kundan Lal and had delivered a child on 06.05.2024. Kundan Lal confirmed his relationship with the victim. He stated that the Jacha Bacha Card of the victim was prepared at PHC Kelti. The victim was examined at CHC Thunag on 27.09.2023, 09.11.2023, 09.12.2023, 09.01.2024, 02.03.2024 and 02.04.2024. Her ultrasound was performed at Mandav Hospital, Mandi on 11.12.2023 and 02.04.2024. The police found that a regular health check of the victim was performed by three doctors and the victim's age was described as 16-17 years. FHW, CHO and Asha workers had prepared the Jacha Bacha Card and High-Risk Pregnancy card in which the victim was mentioned as a teenager. The medical officers did not provide any information regarding her pregnancy to the police; hence, the police added Section 21 of the POCSO Act. The police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and other persons. The petitioner has no role to play in the present matter and he was impleaded as an accused without any evidence. The petitioner was posted as Medical Officer at CHC Thung, during the relevant period. The petitioner did not know about the victim’s age. The prescription slip and the register containing the victim’s particulars were prepared by the Pharmacist on duty. The F.I.R. does not contain the name of the petitioner and he was wrongly impleaded. The petitioner is under no obligation to investigate and gather knowledge about the age of the victim. The continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. The learned Special Judge has not mentioned Section 21 of the POCSO Act and the summoning order is bad, therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and that F.I.R. be quashed.

3. I have heard Mr. Kashmir Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Harjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Kashmir Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. Learned Trial Judge has not assigned any reason while summoning the petitioner. Section 21 of the POCSO Act was not mentioned by the learned Trial Judge. The petitioner is a Medical Officer and is under no obligation to make enquiries about the age of the patients. He relied upon the judgment of Madras High Court passed in Dr Jenbaglakshmi vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and another Crl.OP(MD) No. 15947 of 2024 in support of his submission.

5. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State submitted that as per photocopies of the order sheets filed with the petition, the petitioner was summoned for 28.09.2024. He h