Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar T.B. v. State of Karnataka & Devika
Bench- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.8789 OF 2023 (GM – RES)
Decided On 02-06-2023
Facts of the case-
The petitioner, a retired doctor now running Prashanthi Hospital in Laxmisha Nagara, Chikkamagaluru, is the subject of a crime registration. On 17-12-2022, between 13:00 to 14:00 hours, the victim, Devica arrived at the petitioner’s hospital seeking treatment.
The victim was in critical condition with severe bleeding and decreased vitals, allegedly caused by taking abortion tablets 2 to 3 days prior. Accompanying the victim were individuals claiming to be her parents.
The petitioner promptly admitted the patient to the hospital and provided immediate medical intervention, including oxygen and IV fluids, which improved the victim’s condition. However, it is claimed that the petitioner performed an incomplete medical termination of pregnancy, leaving the placenta behind.
Due to the victim’s instability and ongoing bleeding, the petitioner performed a procedure to retain the placenta, as further expulsion would have endangered the victim’s life. After approximately two days of admission, once the victim’s condition stabilized, she was discharged in the morning and taken by her purported relatives.
Around one month later, Crime No.1 of 2023 was registered at Belthangadi Police Station for the aforementioned offenses. Initially, the petitioner was not named as an accused party. Following an investigation, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 17-02-2023, accusing them of performing a medical termination of pregnancy on a 12-year and 11-month-old victim who had been subjected to sexual activity.
The petitioner was charged under Section 21 of the relevant Act. Subsequently, on 26-02-2023, a charge sheet was filed against other accused parties as well as the petitioner/accused No.8 for the offense under Section 21 of the Act. The filing of this charge sheet has prompted the petitioner to approach the court through the present petition.
Relevant Provisions
| POCSO ACT, 2012 | Related to |
| Sec. 21 | Punishment for failure to report or record a case |
Judgement
The court has dismissed the plea of the accused, a gynecologist, and expressed strong dissatisfaction with the accused’s failure to recognize the victim’s age during the medical termination of pregnancy, despite having 35 years of experience in the field. The bench emphasized that such a lapse in judgment by a seasoned professional is unacceptable.
Furthermore, the court highlighted the significant concern that non-reporting of cases involving minors and their exploitation would allow offenders to evade legal consequences. This directly undermines the core objective of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, which aims to safeguard the rights and well-being of minors. The court emphasized the need for strict adherence to reporting protocols to ensure that offenders are held accountable and justice is served.
The dismissal of the accused’s plea and the court’s strong remarks reflect the gravity of the situation and the court’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice, protection, and deterrence in cases involving the exploitation of minors.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
