Criminal Prosecution Against Subsequent Doctor U/S 21 POCSO Act Is Abuse Of Court Process If Initial Doctor Already Reported To Police: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court quashed the proceedings against an accused Doctor, pending before the Special Court, POCSO Act.

The Kerala High Court held that a criminal prosecution against a subsequent Doctor under Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is abuse of process of Court if an initial Doctor has already reported about the offence to the Police.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed by a Doctor under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the Special Court.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “… it is held that, when the initial doctor, who treated or had occasion to attend the victim, on getting knowledge regarding commission of the offence under the POCSO Act, reports the same without much delay and on the basis of the same crime also registered, criminal prosecution against the doctor or doctors, who subsequently treated the same victim for the offence under Section 21 read with 19(1) of the POCSO Act, is an abuse of process of court, since the doctor who initially treated the victim already informed the same to the Police and crime was also registered. No doubt, such prosecution shall be avoided.”
The Bench noted that when a doctor, who had occasion to treat or attend a victim of the POCSO Act offence, gets knowledge regarding commission of the offence under the POCSO Act, he is duty bound to report the same to the Police, in view of the mandate of Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, but the statute does not provide an outer time limit for the same.
“Therefore, the intent behind the legislature is to report commission of the offence under the POCSO Act, without much delay”, it added.
Advocate K.T. Bosco represented the Petitioner/Accused while Public Prosecutor Jibu T.S. represented the Respondent/State.
Factual Background
As per the prosecution case, in 2021 the first accused trespassed upon the residence of the minor victim, aged 17 years, and subjected her to sexual intercourse and resultantly, the minor victim became pregnant. On this premise, the prosecution alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 4(1) read with 3(a), 6(ii) read with 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, as against the first accused.
It was further alleged that the Petitioner-Doctor i.e., third accused and the victim’s mother i.e., the second accused failed to report the crime to the Police as provided under Section 19 POCSO Act and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 21 read with 19(1) of POCSO Act. The counsel for the Petitioner contended that there was no deliberate omission on the part of the Petitioner to inform the crime to the Police. It further contended that since the crime was registered while the victim was undergoing treatment, there is no deliberate omission on the part of the Petitioner to report the matter to the Police.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “Technically speaking, the petitioner got knowledge regarding the commission of POCSO Act offences on 02.06.2021 and she did not inform the same to the Police. But, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was already informed by Dr.Indu M.R. and crime was registered on 04.06.2021.”
The following two questions arose before the Court for its consideration –
• Whether there is any deliberate or willful omission on the part of the petitioner in the matter of reporting the crime to the Police, in the facts of the given case, as discussed?
• On getting information regarding commission of offence under the POCSO Act, once the doctor who initially attended the victim already informed the matter to the Police, whether non furnishing of information again by another doctor, who treated the victim subsequently, by itself would attract an offence punishable under Section 21 read with 19(1) of the POCSO Act?
“In the instant case, Dr.Indu M.R, who initially treated the victim on 31.05.2021, on noticing the pregnancy of minor girl, reported the same as MLC on 03.06.2021 and the CMO of the hospital reported the same to the Police on 04.06.2021 and crime was registered on 04.06.2021. In the meantime, the petitioner also had occasion to treat the victim on 02.06.2021 onwards and on 04.06.2021 the Police, acting on the request given by Dr.Indu M.R., who attended the victim for the first time, registered the crime”, further noted the Court.
The Court, therefore, concluded that there is no deliberate omission on the part of the Petitioner in reporting the crime and that the criminal prosecution as against the Petitioner alleging commission of offence under Section 21 read with 19(1) of POCSO Act is unwarranted and without any justification.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the proceedings against the accused doctor.
Cause Title- Dr. V.K. Sulochana v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:7822)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates K.T. Bosco and P. Darly John.
Respondent: Public Prosecutor Jibu T.S.