High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Radiologist, Says Mere Conduct of Sonography Does Not Attract Section 21 of POCSO Act
In a significant ruling, 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, 2012, merely for conducting a sonography unless there is material to establish that the doctor had knowledge of the commission of a POCSO offence.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings against a radiologist who had been booked for allegedly failing to report an offence under Section 21 of the POCSO Act after conducting a sonography on a minor girl.
Background of the Case
According to the case records, the victim was a 15-year-old girl who was initially taken to a doctor with complaints of vomiting and abdominal movement. Medical examination later revealed that she was carrying an approximately eight-month pregnancy. She was subsequently referred to Rajnandgaon, where the petitioner-radiologist performed a diagnostic sonography.
Initially, an FIR was registered only against the juvenile accused under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. During the investigation, however, the radiologist was also arraigned as an accused on the allegation that she failed to report the matter to the authorities after conducting the ultrasound examination.
Challenging the criminal proceedings, the radiologist approached the High Court seeking quashing of the case.
Her counsel argued that she had fully complied with all statutory requirements under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC-PNDT) Act and had duly submitted the mandatory Form F to the competent authority.
The petitioner further contended that there was no material to suggest she had any knowledge of a sexual offence or any reason to suspect the commission of a POCSO offence. It was argued that merely conducting a diagnostic sonography in the normal course of professional duty could not attract criminal liability under Section 21 of the POCSO Act.
The State opposed the plea, submitting that the victim was a 15-year-old pregnant girl and that the petitioner, being a qualified medical practitioner, had a statutory duty to report the matter under the POCSO Act.
High Court’s Observations
The High Court observed that the core issue was whether the material collected during investigation disclosed the essential ingredients required to prosecute the radiologist under Section 21 of the POCSO Act.
Referring to Sections 19 and 21 of the Act, the Bench noted that Section 19 imposes a legal obligation to report a POCSO offence only when a person has knowledge that such an offence has been committed or has an apprehension that it is likely to be committed. Section 21 merely prescribes punishment for failure to discharge that obligation.
The Court held:
“Therefore, the existence of knowledge or apprehension regarding the commission of an offence is the foundational requirement for attracting penal liability under Section 21.”
The Bench found that neither the FIR, witness statements, nor the supplementary charge sheet contained any material indicating that the victim had disclosed sexual assault to the radiologist or that the doctor otherwise had knowledge of the alleged offence.
The Court further observed that there was no allegation that the radiologist participated in, facilitated, or attempted to shield the principal accused.
It held that:
“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.”
The Court emphasised that criminal liability cannot be imposed merely on assumptions in the absence of statutory prerequisites.
Reliance on Supreme Court Judgment
The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sr. Tessy Jose, wherein the Apex Court held that prosecution under Section 21 of the POCSO Act can be sustained only when there is evidence showing that the person concerned had knowledge of the offence and deliberately failed to report it.
Applying the same principle, the High Court observed that the prosecution had failed to produce any material from which such knowledge could reasonably be inferred.
Holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the judicial process, the Court quashed the order taking cognisance, the supplementary charge sheet against the radiologist, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising out of Special Sessions Case No. 07/2026.
