Mere sonography cannot presume knowledge of sexual offence: HC quashes POCSO proceedings against radiologist

According to the case details, the patient was a 15-year-old minor who had been taken to the doctor with complaints of vomiting and later, movement in the abdomen. She was taken to a doctor at Pathri, where it was revealed that she was carrying a pregnancy of approximately eight months. Later, the patient was taken to Rajnandgaon for sonography.

Initially, an FIR was registered only against the juvenile accused for the offences punishable under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Later, the petitioner-Radiologist was implicated during the course of the investigation on the allegation that she had conducted the sonography of the victim and had failed to report the matter under Section 21 of the POCSO Act.

Seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner approached the High Court and her counsel submitted that the petitioner-Radiologist had duly complied with all the statutory requirements prescribed under the PC-PNDT Act and the Rules, including forwarding the requisite Form 'F' to the competent authority.

It was further submitted that there was no material on record to indicate any lapse or omission on the part of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was arrested on 08.03.2026 for the alleged offence under Section 21 of the POCSO Act and was later released on bail. Thereafter, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed implicating several persons, including the petitioner, on general and omnibus allegations.

The counsel argued that a plain and meaningful reading of the FIR, the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, and the charge-sheet would demonstrate that there was no material on record to prima facie establish that the petitioner had any knowledge of, or reasonable apprehension regarding, the commission of an offence as contemplated under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, which is an essential prerequisite for attracting the provisions of Section 21.

It was further submitted that in the absence of such foundational material, the mere act of conducting a diagnostic sonography in the ordinary course of professional duties cannot, by itself, attract criminal liability under the POCSO Act.

On the other hand, the State argued that the FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the mother of the minor, and during the course of investigation sufficient material had been collected to prima facie establish the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence.

The State's counsel argued that the patient was a minor aged about 15 years and was found to be carrying an advanced pregnancy, and the petitioner, being a qualified medical practitioner, had conducted the sonography.

Being a medical professional, the petitioner was under a statutory obligation to discharge her duties in accordance with law, and the investigating agency, upon appreciation of the material collected during investigation, found sufficient grounds to invoke the provisions of Section 21 of the POCSO Act, argued the counsel for the State.

Observations by High Court:

The bench noted that in this case, the legal question that required consideration was whether the material collected during investigation discloses the commission of an offence under Section 21 of the POCSO Act against the present petitioner, to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings.

At the outset, the HC bench referred to Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act and noted that Section 19 casts a statutory obligation upon any person, including a medical practitioner, to report the commission of an offence under the POCSO Act only when such person has knowledge that an offence has been committed or has an apprehension that such an offence is likely to be committed. Meanwhile, Section 21 merely provides the consequence of failure to discharge the obligation contemplated under Section 19 of the POCSO Act.

"Therefore, the existence of knowledge or apprehension regarding the commission of an offence is the foundational requirement for attracting penal liability under Section 21," noted the bench.

The Court noted that the allegation against the petitioner was confined to the fact that she had conducted the sonography of the patient when the latter was carrying an advanced pregnancy and did not report the matter to the police.

"Significantly, neither the FIR nor the statements recorded during investigation nor the supplementary charge-sheet disclose any material to indicate that the victim had informed the petitioner that she had been subjected to sexual assault or that the petitioner otherwise had knowledge that an offence punishable under the POCSO Act had been committed. There is equally no allegation that the petitioner had participated in the commission of the offence, facilitated the offence, or attempted to shield the principal accused," the Court observed at the outset.

"The prosecution has not brought on record any material to prima facie establish the existence of the essential ingredients contemplated under Section 19 of the POCSO Act. Mere performance of a diagnostic sonography in the ordinary course of professional duties, without anything more, cannot automatically lead to an inference that the medical practitioner had knowledge of the commission of an offence under the POCSO Act. Criminal liability cannot be fastened merely on surmises or assumptions in the absence of the statutory prerequisites," it observed.

Further, the HC bench referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sr. Tessy Jose (Supra), where, while interpreting Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act, the Apex Court had held that the obligation to report arises only when the person concerned has knowledge of the commission of an offence under the Act and that, in the absence of such knowledge, prosecution under Section 21 cannot be sustained. The Supreme Court further observed that the provisions of Section 21 cannot be invoked in a mechanical manner against persons discharging their professional duties unless the foundational facts necessary to attract the provision are established.

The High Court relied on several other legal precedents and observed, "Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the entire prosecution case against the present petitioner proceeds only on the premise that she had conducted the sonography of the victim. Except for this circumstance, there is no material to indicate that the petitioner had knowledge of the commission of any offence under the POCSO Act or that she deliberately omitted to report the same despite such knowledge. The charge-sheet is conspicuously silent as to any circumstance from which such knowledge can reasonably be inferred. Consequently, the essential ingredients necessary for constituting an offence under Section 21 of the POCSO Act are conspicuously absent."

It further opined that permitting the criminal prosecution against the petitioner to continue in the absence of any prima facie material satisfying the ingredients of Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

Accordingly, granting relief to the petitioner-Radiologist, the HC bench ordered, "Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, taking cognizance against the petitioner, the supplementary Chargesheet No.08-A/2026 dated 10.03.2026, insofar as it relates to the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom in Special Sessions Case No.07/2026, are hereby quashed."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/30/chhattisgarh-hc-sonography-362273.pdf

Also Read: Hospitals to face legal action for failing to report minor pregnancies: Karnataka Govt