HC Quashes Proceedings Against Doctor, Holding No Willful Omission in Reporting POCSO Offence

Kerala High Court has ruled that prosecuting a subsequent doctor under Section 21 of the POCSO Act constitutes an abuse of court process if the initial doctor has already reported the offence to the police.

The court quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor accused of failing to report a case under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, holding that no deliberate omission was evident.

Case Background

The case pertains to an alleged sexual offence against a minor in 2021. According to the prosecution, the first accused unlawfully trespassed into the residence of a 17-year-old minor victim and engaged in sexual intercourse, resulting in pregnancy.

Consequently, the first accused faced charges under Sections 450 and 376 IPC, along with Sections 4(1) read with 3(a) and 6(ii) read with 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution also implicated the victim’s mother (second accused) and the doctor (third accused) for failing to report the offence to the police, thereby attracting charges under Section 21 read with Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act.

The petitioner, Dr. V.K. Sulochana, moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the proceedings against her.

Court’s Observations

A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, a doctor who treats a victim of a POCSO offence is legally bound to report the offence to the police.

However, the statute does not prescribe an outer time limit for such reporting, implying that it should be done without undue delay.

The court noted that in this case:

• Dr. Indu M.R., the initial treating doctor, detected the minor’s pregnancy on 31.05.2021 and reported it as an MLC on 03.06.2021.
• The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of the hospital subsequently informed the police, leading to the registration of a crime on 04.06.2021.
• The petitioner, Dr. V.K. Sulochana, treated the victim from 02.06.2021 onwards, but the police had already registered the crime based on Dr. Indu M.R.’s report.

Given these facts, the court examined two key legal questions:

1. Was there a deliberate or willful omission on the petitioner’s part in reporting the offence?
2. Would non-reporting by a subsequent treating doctor, when the initial doctor had already reported the offence, attract liability under Section 21 of the POCSO Act?

The court answered both in the negative, ruling that once the initial doctor had fulfilled the statutory duty by reporting the offense, prosecuting another doctor for the same obligation was unwarranted and amounted to an abuse of the judicial process.

Verdict & Legal Implications

The High Court quashed the proceedings against Dr. V.K. Sulochana, emphasizing that the POCSO Act mandates reporting of offences without delay, but not repetitive reporting by every treating doctor.

The judgment underscores that subsequent doctors cannot be held criminally liable under Section 21 merely because they treated a POCSO victim after the crime was already reported.

Case Details

• Case Title: Dr. V.K. Sulochana v. State of Kerala
• Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:7822
• Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen
• Petitioner’s Counsel: Advocates K.T. Bosco & P. Darly John
• Respondent’s Counsel: Public Prosecutor Jibu T.S.