SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16457

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P.DHANABAL, J
S.Muthulakshmi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
CRL. OP(MD). No.3748 of 2025 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.2640 of 2024



Advocates:
For Petitioner:Mr.G.Mariappan For Respondents:Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar No.1 Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

A medical professional cannot be prosecuted under the POCSO Act without knowledge of a patient's true age, especially when the patient is presented as an adult.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(j), 5(j)(ii), 6 - Indian Penal Code - Section 506(i) - Quashing of FIR - The petitioner, a doctor, was accused of not verifying the age of a victim who underwent an abortion, leading to her inclusion as an accused in a case of sexual assault. The court found no evidence that the petitioner had knowledge of the victim's age or that she committed an offence under the POCSO Act. (Paras 2, 6, 8)

(B) Medical Duty - A doctor must act to save a patient's life, and if the patient and guardians represent the patient as an adult, the doctor cannot be held liable under POCSO without knowledge of the patient's true age. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of performing an abortion on a victim who was allegedly underage, based on a complaint from a Social Welfare Officer. The victim was presented as 20 years old at the time of treatment. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner acted in good faith based on the information provided by the victim and her mother, and there was no evidence of wrongdoing. (Paras 7, 8)

Issues: Whether the petitioner can be prosecuted under the POCSO Act for not verifying the victim's age when the victim was presented as an adult. (Paras 6, 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without knowledge of the victim's true age, the petitioner could not be held liable under the POCSO Act, emphasizing the duty of care owed by medical professionals. (Paras 7, 8)

Result: The FIR against the petitioner was quashed.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.13 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl got pregnant through one Veerasamy. When the victim was studying tenth standard she used to go to house of Veerasamy, at that time the said Veerasamy had committed sexual assault on the victim girl and thereby she got pregnant and gave birth to a female child and thereafter the child died and the same was buried. To that effect the complaint was lodged by the Social Welfare Officer and the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 5(j), 5(j)(ii), 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506(i) of IPC. Thereafter during investigation the investigation officer came to know that victim was taken to Virudhunagar and her child was aborted in the hospital where the petitioner was working as doctor . Therefore this petitioner has been included as one of the accused/A6, who is now challenging the pending First Information Report.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as a Doctor at Virudhunagar and the hospital is a Multi Speciality Hospital. While so one lady was brought to the hospital on 13.07.2023 claiming to be the daughter of Ponnusamy having residence at Kanthan Street, Sundaravalli Match Office Near Virudhunagar was brought by her mother Malliga and they reported that the victim was 20 years old and admitted in the hospital. She was said to be 2 ½ months pregnant and she was found with bleedings and they stated that she had taken pills for abortion and the treatment was given to her with the consent of the patient and her mother for D and C Procedures. She was given IV sedation and conception curetted out and thereafter she was discharged on 13.07.2023 at 7.30 p.m., Since the patient and her mother stated that the victim is 20 years old the petitioner had decided to go for D and C procedures. Apart from that they have no knowledge about the case and they have not suppressed anything and further the appearance of the patient also seems to be more than 20 years. There is no any offence committed by the petitioner . Further the investigation officer included the petitioner as one of the accused /A6 in this case. Therefore she has filed this petition to quash the First Information Report as against this petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant/second respondent the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 5(j), 5(j)(ii), 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506(i) of IPC. Thereafter during investigation they came to know that the victim girl aborted her child in the hospital of the petitioner and this petitioner only aborted the child and the petitioner has not verified the age and other particulars at the time of treating the victim girl. Therefore she was also included as one of the accused in this case and the case is under investigation and at this stage the petition is liable to be dismissed. He would further submit that after elaborate investigation they filed charge sheet before the POCSO Court, Karur .

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. In this case it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is not named accused in the First Information Report and the First Information Report has been registered against one Veersamy. During investigation the Investigation Officer found that this petitioner only aborted the child of the victim. At the time of abortion, the petitioner has not verified the age of the victim and the same was not informed to the concerned authorities under the POCSO Act, therefore this petitioner also included as one of the accused.

7.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top