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 false claims.

ORDER:

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

“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