HC refuses to quash criminal proceedings against Obstetrician who failed to report POSCO case, performed MTP on minor
Bengaluru: In a recent judgment, the Karnataka High Court bench has denied relief to an Obstetrician and Gynaecologist based in Chikkamagaluru who challenged the case registered against him for allegedly performing MTP on a minor girl.
Denying relief to the 62-year-old doctor, the HC bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna referred to the fact that the Supreme Court itself has directed to strictly comply with Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, 2012, which makes it mandatory for reporting child-sexual offences to police and special juvenile police unit.
The HC bench referred to this and noted that the State must ensure strict compliance with Section 19 of the Pocso Act and reporting of its offences, especially by doctors who are involved in medical termination of pregnancy of minors in extenuating circumstances.
Pointing out that because of failure of reporting such offences, the offenders may get away from the clutches of the law, the bench observed, "Therefore, responsibility to report is cast on all stakeholders..."
These observations came from the HC bench while considering the plea by the petitioner doctor who challenged the crime registered against him by Belthangady police. The doctor had been booked for allegedly performing termination of pregnancy procedure on a girl aged 12 years and 11 months on December 17, 2022, at his clinic.
Also Read: Doctors need not disclose identity of minors seeking MTP: SC
As per the latest media report by the Times of India, the doctor was booked and the Police chargesheeted him under section 21 of the Pocso Act, which is a penal clause for failing to report the offence. However, the petitioner doctor claimed that he had 35 years of experience and he also served as taluk health officer for 20 years in Chikkamagaluru.
In his defence, the doctor claimed that 3-4 people accompanied the girl to his clinic and introduced themselves as her parents and husband. Allegedly, they had informed the doctor that the girl was 18 years and 3 months old. The doctor further claimed that since the girl appeared to be over 18 years old, he performed the surgery.
On the other hand, the counsel for the Government argued that the doctor, being an experienced practitioner, should have noted that the girl was of tender age. The Government counsel further argued that it is for the doctor to come clean in the trial.
While considering the matter, the HC bench of Justice Nagaprasanna noted that reporting of offences under the Pocso Act, especially by doctors, requires strict compliance because in absence of this the offenders committing the offence arising out of consensual sexual activity or a rape or sexual abuse of a child will get away from the clutches of law. This would ultimately defeat the very object of promulgation of the Act, the bench observed while pointing out that the provision is one of those steps towards preventive measures of child abuses.
