By Pradyumna Satish 

The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S., seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. 1 of 2024 registered at the All-Women Police Station, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli District. The FIR, dated 28.02.2024, accuses the petitioner and two others of offences under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6(1), and 21(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 312 of the IPC. 

The matter at hand, as per the prosecution, is that a 17-year-old girl, and younger sister of the complainant, was taken to Trichy Government Hospital by her maternal aunt, Meenakshi, after experiencing complications from an attempted abortion. The victim was allegedly in a relationship with one Ramkumar, who is accused of impregnating her. On 24.02.2024, Meenakshi took the victim to Sudharsana Hospital in Woraiyur, where a scan confirmed she was nine weeks pregnant. On 26.02.2024, Meenakshi returned to the hospital with the victim to terminate the pregnancy. 

During the abortion procedure, the victim reportedly failed to cooperate, resulting in profuse bleeding. She was admitted to Trichy Government Hospital in critical condition on 27.02.2024 at 2:00 a.m. Despite medical treatment, she succumbed to her injuries. Following the victim’s death, a complaint was lodged by her sister, accusing the petitioner of failing to report the case as required under Section 19 of the POCSO Act. 

The Court in the present case relied heavily on the case of Dr. Lata Krishnaraddi Mankali v. State of Karnataka (Crl.RP.No.100169 of 2020, dated 02.02.2024), the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, held that the petitioner, a medical professional, could not be held criminally liable under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act. The Karnataka Court observed and ordered that the obligation to report under these provisions arises only when a person has “knowledge” of an offence. The term “knowledge” signifies receiving information that clearly indicates a crime, and there is no duty to investigate or verify facts such as the victim’s age or the circumstances of the pregnancy. Secondly, the prosecution in that case failed to produce evidence proving the petitioner had knowledge of any offence or that she was complicit in it. Thirdly, the Court also clarified that the petitioner had no obligation to verify the victim’s age, and any failure to do so does not translate into criminal liability. And lastly, the prosecution’s case, based on suspicion without credible evidence, was insufficient to implicate the petitioner.  

Applying the same in the present matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has astutely noted, the petitioner bore no responsibility to verify the victim girl’s age or ascertain whether offences had been committed. 

The Supreme Court concluded that the provisions of Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act are inapplicable to the petitioner and held that the obligation to report under the POCSO Act arises only when clear knowledge of an offence exists, and mere failure to verify the victim’s age or investigate the circumstances does not attract liability. The case against the petitioner was quashed accordingly. 

Case Title: Dr Jenbagalakshmi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another 

Citation: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15947 of 2024 

Click here to read/download the judgement.