The Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor observing that he bore no responsibility to verify age of a victim brought in for abortion to determine if a crime under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act has been committed.

The Single Bench of Justice K. Murali Shankar quashed charges against a doctor accused of failing to report an alleged offence under the Act.

"The precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are directly relevant to the present case. As the Hon'ble Apex Court has astutely noted, the petitioner bore no responsibility to verify the victim girl's age or ascertain whether offences had been committed. In light of this, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that the provisions of Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act are inapplicable to the petitioner," the Court observed.

The case involved a 17-year-old girl who was brought to the petitioner’s hospital by her maternal aunt. Upon examination, the victim was found to be nine weeks pregnant. The petitioner declined to perform the abortion, citing the need to report the matter to the police and District Collector, as the victim was unmarried. The victim later returned to the hospital with complications, leading to her referral to a government hospital in Trichy, where she unfortunately died.

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 doctor and two others were charged under Sections 5(1), 5(j)(ii), 6(1), and 21(1) of the POCSO Act, and Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in SR Tessy Jose and Others v. State of Kerala, (2018) 8 SCC 292, which held that doctors are not required to deduce or infer knowledge of an offence based on circumstances.

The Single Judge noted:

1. No Obligation to Verify Age: The petitioner was not responsible for verifying the victim’s age or ascertaining whether an offence had been committed.

2. Failure of Prosecution: The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner, relying solely on the sister’s statement without conducting a preliminary inquiry.

3. Impact on Medical Community: The Court expressed concern that false complaints and harassment of medical professionals could deter doctors from taking risks to save patients’ lives, leading to adverse societal consequences.

The Court stated, "Now-a-days, we come across attacks on the doctors and hospitals. Doctors, the Guardian of life, embody a noble profession, often revered as akin to God / Almighty, as they possess the extraordinary ability to save lives and restore health."

"While acknowledging the presence of quacks and corporatized hospitals, it is essential to recognize that majority of medical practitioners dedicate their life to serve humanity with compassion and expertise," it said.

The Court highlighted the critical role of doctors in society, stating, “False complaints against doctors can lead to unwanted harassment by police authorities, causing immense stress, reputational damage, and impacting their ability to practice medicine. It is crucial to accord doctors the respect and dignity they deserve, and failing to do so can have devastating consequences on society, including demotivation among medical professionals, decreased access to quality health care, and erosion of trust in the medical community. It is high time for society to preserve the sanctity of the medical profession and to uphold the dignity of doctors to ensure the continued provision of exceptional care, innovation, and dedication to saving lives.”

The Court quashed the case against the petitioner, ruling that prosecuting the doctor would amount to an abuse of process. It also clarified that there was no evidence linking the petitioner’s actions to the victim’s death under Section 312 of the IPC. "Considering the above, this Court holds that the ingredients of Section 312 IPC are not met against the petitioner. Permitting prosecution would be unnecessary, unwarranted, and amount to an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the FIR in Crime No.1 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent is liable to be quashed against the petitioner," the Court said.

Cause Title: Dr Jenbagalakshmi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another [Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15947 of 2024]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Counsel Isaac Mohanlal

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) E. Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Advocate G. Karuppasamy Pandian

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice K. Murali ShankarMadras High CourtProtection Of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act

Sukriti Mishra

Legal Correspondent

Sukriti Mishra is a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She extensively covers the Supreme Court. She has completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022, she has previously worked with another legal news portal, where she extensively covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.