Doctor Conducting Sonography Without Knowledge Of Offence Not Liable Under POCSO Act For Failure To Report: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a medical practitioner cannot be prosecuted under Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act merely for conducting a diagnostic sonography, unless there is prima facie material to show that the doctor had knowledge of, or apprehended, the commission of a POCSO offence. The Court observed that the statutory duty to...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a medical practitioner cannot be prosecuted under Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act merely for conducting a diagnostic sonography, unless there is prima facie material to show that the doctor had knowledge of, or apprehended, the commission of a POCSO offence. The Court observed that the statutory duty to report under Section 19 of the Act arises only when such knowledge or apprehension exists, and criminal liability cannot be inferred solely from the performance of professional medical duties.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing a petition filed by a radiologist seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against her under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. According to the prosecution, a 15-year-old girl became pregnant after being sexually assaulted by a juvenile. During investigation, the petitioner was implicated solely on the allegation that she had conducted the victim's sonography during the advanced stage of pregnancy but had failed to report the matter under Section 21 of the POCSO Act.
The petitioner contended that she had discharged her professional duties in accordance with law, including compliance with the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC-PNDT) Act, and that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet contained any material to suggest that she had knowledge of the alleged sexual offence.
The Court observed that Section 19 of the POCSO Act casts a duty to report only where a person has knowledge that an offence has been committed or apprehends that such an offence is likely to be committed, while Section 21 merely prescribes the consequence of failure to discharge that obligation. It found that neither the FIR, the witness statements nor the supplementary charge-sheet disclosed any material indicating that the victim had informed the petitioner about the alleged sexual assault or that the petitioner otherwise possessed knowledge that a POCSO offence had been committed.
“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,” the Court observed.
The Court noted that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the uncontroverted allegations fail to disclose the commission of any offence and their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Holding that the prosecution rested solely on the circumstance that the petitioner had conducted the victim's sonography and that there was no material from which knowledge of the alleged POCSO offence could reasonably be inferred, the Court concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the order taking cognizance against the petitioner, the supplementary charge-sheet insofar as it related to her for the offence under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, and all consequential criminal proceedings.
Case Title: Dr. Aarti Uike (Vaskle) v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. [CRMP No. 947 of 2026]