Bombay High Court
Vidya Anil Rathod vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 9 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10500-DB
J-apl1005.25 final.odt 1/13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.1005 OF 2025
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.1021 OF 2025
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.1040 OF 2025
-----------
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.1005 OF 2025
Dr. Anil s/o. Shobha Rathod,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation : Medical Practitioner,
C/o. Ankur Nursing Home,
Talao Layout, Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Pusad City,
Distt. Yavatmal.
2. ABC (Minor),
Through Guardian,
in Crime No.0259/25,
Registered at P.S.O. Pusad City. : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Firdos Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shaad Mirza,
Advocate for Applicant.
Ms. S.Z. Haider, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1.
Mrs. Nisha Gajbhiye (Wasnik), Appointed Advocate for Non-applicant
No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
AND
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.1021 OF 2025
Dr. Vidya w/o. Anil Rathod,
Aged about 40 years,
Occupation : Medical Practitioner,
C/o. Ankur Nursing Home,
Talao Layout, Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal. : APPLICANT
J-apl1005.25 final.odt 2/13
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Pusad City,
Distt. Yavatmal.
2. ABC (Minor), : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Firdos Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shaad Mirza,
Advocate for Applicant.
Ms. S.Z. Haider, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1.
Mrs. Nisha Gajbhiye (Wasnik), Appointed Advocate for Non-applicant
No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
AND
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.1040 OF 2025
Dr. Sneha w/o. Nakul Kadam,
Aged about 38 years,
Occupation : Medical Practitioner,
C/o. Nishkarsh Diagnostic Centre,
Talao Layout, Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Pusad City,
Distt. Yavatmal.
2. ABC (Minor),
Through Guardian,
in Crime No.0259/25,
Registered at P.S.O. Pusad City. : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Firdos Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shaad Mirza,
Advocate for Applicant.
Ms. S.Z. Haider, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1.
Mrs. Nisha Gajbhiye (Wasnik), Appointed Advocate for Non-applicant
No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
J-apl1005.25 final.odt 3/13
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 01st OCTOBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 09th OCTROBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. All these three applications are filed under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and they
challenge First Information Report bearing No.0259/2025,
registered with non-applicant No.1/Police Station Pusad City,
District Yavatmal. Since all three applications challenged the same
First Information Report, these applications are disposed of by
common judgment.
3. The non-applicant No.2/minor, through her mother
filed a complaint before the non-applicant No.1 alleging that the
applicants in all these three applications have committed offences
punishable under Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 65(1) and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections
4,6,19 and 21 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012.
4. The applicant (in Criminal Application (APL)
No.1005/2025) is a medical Practitioner having qualification in
M.B.B.S., D.G.O. and runs a Nursing Home along with his wife,
who is a Gynaecologist (Criminal Application (APL)
No.1021/2025). As per the First Information Report, non-applicant
No.2 averred that she was engaged with one Dinesh Laxman
Jadhav on 29.10.2024 and it was decided that they would get
married after non-applicant No.2 completes 18 years of age. After
engagement in the month of November 2024 when the parents of
non-applicant No.2 had gone out of the house for doing labour
work, said Dinesh, who happens to be cousin of non-applicant
No.2, came at her house and stated that since they were getting
married, there is no difficulty in establishing physical relationship.
The non-applicant No.2, however, stated that it would not be
proper and that and the same can be done after the marriage.
However, said Dinesh persisted and established physical
relationship with her. This phenomenon was repeated from
November 2024 till April 2025.
5. On 21.4.2025 when non-applicant No.2 was having
fever she took a tablet which resulted in excessive bleeding. Her
mother, therefore, took her to the clinic of Doctor Vidya Rathod.
The said doctor did pregnancy test of the non-applicant No.2 and
then referred to her to Doctor Sneha Kadam for Sonography. Said
Doctor Sneha Kadam (applicant in Criminal Application (APL)
No.1040/2025) did Sonography and after getting the report, gave
the said report to Doctor Anil Rathod since Doctor Vidya Rathod
was not present in the hospital. The said report was shown to
Doctor Anil Rathod, wherein it was revealed that non-applicant
No.2 is pregnant having a fetus of one and half month.
6. It is on these allegations that all the three applicants,
who happened to be Medical Practitioners are implicated as
accused and the offences as mentioned above are lodged against
them. It is this First Information Report and the consequent charge
sheet which is challenged in these applications by the said doctors.
7. We have heard Mr. Firdos Mirza, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Shaad Mirza, learned counsel for the
applicants. We have also heard Ms. S.Z. Haider, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1/State and Mrs. Nisha
Gajbhiye, leaned Appointed Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants took us
through the averments made in the First Information Report and
the consequent charge-sheet filed by the prosecution on record and
stated that only allegations against the present applicants is that
they did not inform/report commission of offence to the Special
Juvenile Police Unit or the local Police and thus have committed an
offence punishable under Section 19 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He further states that the
applicants in all the applications had no knowledge about the
commission of said offence and they had no reason to have
knowledge about the said offence. It is, therefore, his submission
that continuance of criminal proceedings against the applicants is
an abuse of process of law. He relies on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SR. Tessy Jose and others Vs.
State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 292 to buttress his
submission.
9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-
applicant No.1, on the other hand, as also the learned counsel for
non-applicant no.2 opposed the submissions of the learned Senior
Counsel for the applicants and state that prosecuting agency has
enough material to continue the prosecution against the accused.
She further submits that the prosecution agency has collected
material like entry register of Ankur Nursing Home as also the
Sonography report which clearly show that the non-applicant No.2
had approached the applicants for doing test of Sonography. She,
therefore, submits that present case does not fall under the
category of rareest of rare case. The non-applicant No.2 also
supports the learned A.P.P. and states that it was the obligation of
the applicants to report the offence as the wording of the provision
is mandatory in nature.
10. In the light of these facts, we have perused the First
Information Report as also the charge-sheet filed by the
Investigating Agency. In the case of SR. Tessy Jose and others
(supra) in identical set of facts the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in
para Nos.8,9,10,13 and 14 as under :
"8. After going through the record and hearing
the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion
that no such case is made out even as per the
material collected by the prosecution and filed in
the Court. The statement of the mother of the
victim was recorded by the police. The statement
of the victim was also recorded. They have not
stated at all that when the victim was brought to
the hospital, her mother informed the appellants
that she had been raped by the accused no. 1
when she was a minor. Admittedly, the victim was
pregnant and immediately went into labour. In
these circumstances, it was even the professional
duty of Appellant No. 1 to attend to her and
conduct the delivery, which she did. Likewise,
after the baby was born, the Appellant No. 2 as a
Paediatrician performed her professional duty.
9. The entire case set up against the appellants
is on the basis that when the victim was brought
to the hospital her age was recorded as 18 years.
On that basis appellants could have gathered that
at the time of conception she was less than 18
years and was, thus, a minor and, therefore, the
appellants should have taken due care in finding
as to how the victim became pregnant. Fastening
the criminal liability on the basis of the aforesaid
allegation is too far-fetched. The provisions of
Section 19(1), reproduced above, put a legal
obligation on a person to inform the relevant
authorities, inter alia, when he/she has
knowledge that an offence under the Act had
been committed. The expression used is
"knowledge" which means that some information
received by such a person gives him/her
knowledge about the commission of the crime.
There is no obligation on this person to
investigate and gather knowledge. If at all, the
appellants were not careful enough to find the
cause of pregnancy as the victim was only 18
years of age at the time of delivery. But that
would not be translated into criminality.
10. The term "knowledge" has been
interpreted by this Court in A.S. Krishnan v. State
of Kerala to mean an awareness on the part of
the person concerned indicating his state of
mind. Further, a person can be supposed to know
only where there is a direct appeal to his senses.
We have gone through the medical records of the
victim which were referred by Mr. Basant R.,
Senior Advocate for the appellants. The medical
records, which are relied upon by the
prosecution, only show that the victim was
admitted in the hospital at 9.15 am and she
immediately went into labour and at 9.25 a.m.
she gave birth to a baby. Therefore, appellant No.
1 attended to the victim for the first time
between 9.15 a.m. and 9.25 a.m. on 7-2-2017.
The medical records of the victim state that she
was 18 years' old as on 7-2-2017. Appellant No. 1
did not know that the victim was a minor when
she had sexual intercourse.
13. The knowledge requirement foisted on the
appellants cannot be that they ought to have
deduced from circumstances that an offence has
been committed.
14. Accordingly, we are of the view that there
is no evidence to implicate the appellants.
Evidence should be such which should at least
indicate grave suspicion. Mere likelihood of
suspicion cannot be the reason to charge a person
for an offence. Accordingly, these appeals are
allowed and the proceedings against the
appellants in the aforesaid Sessions Case No. 460
of 2017 are hereby quashed."
11. The controversy in the present matter has to be
appreciated in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reproduced supra. In the present matter, it is not even case of the
prosecution that all the three applicants had knowledge about the
applicant being minor or they have reason to believe that she was
minor. The Hon'ble Apex Court unequivocally states that the
requirement of 'knowledge' as contemplated under Section 19 of
the Act cannot be seen that the applicants like the Medical
Practitioners ought to have deduced the age of the minor from the
circumstances and, therefore, accordingly have reported it to the
authorities under the Act.
12. In A.S. Krishnan Vs. State of Kerala, reported in 1998
Cri L.J. 207 (Kerala). The Supreme Court while distinguishing the
term "intention", "knowledge" and "reasons to believe" has
observed as under :
"9. Under the IPC, guilt in respect of almost
all the offences is fastened either on the ground
of "intention" or "knowledge" or "reason to
believe". We are now concerned with the
expressions "knowledge" and "reason to believe".
"Knowledge" is an awareness on the part of the
person concerned indicating his state of mind.
"Reason to believe" is not the same thing as
"suspicion" or "doubt" and mere seeing also
cannot be equated to believing. "Reason to
believe" is a higher level of statement of mind.
Likewise "knowledge" will be slightly on higher
plane than "reason to believe"/ A person can be
supposed to know where there is a direct appeal
to his senses and a person is presumed to have a
reason to believe if he has sufficient cause to
believe the same. Section 26, IPC explains the
meaning of the words "reason to believe" thus.
J-apl1005.25 final.odt 10/13
26. "Reason to believe" A person is said to
have 'reason to believe' a thing, if he has
sufficient cause to believe that thing but not
otherwise."
10. In substance what is means is that a
person must have reason to believe if the
circumstances are such that a reasonable man
would, by probable reasoning, conclude or infer
regarding the nature of the thing concerned.
Such circumstances need not necessarily be
capable of absolute conviction or inference; but it
is sufficient if the circumstances are such creating
a cause to believe by chain of probable reasoning
leading to the conclusion or inference about the
nature of the thing. These two requirements i.e.
"knowledge" and "reason to believe" have to be
deduced from various circumstances in the case.
(See Joti Parshad v. State of Haryana (1993 Supp
(2) SCC 497 : AIR 1993 SC 1167)."
13. It is thus clear that knowledge is an awareness on the
part of the person concern indicating his state of mind. 'Reason to
believe' is a higher level of statement of mind and knowledge will be
slightly on a higher level than reasons to believe. A person is said to
have a 'reason to believe' a thing if he has sufficient reason to believe
that thing but not otherwise. The Legislature has intentionally used
the word "knowledge" in the present provision and, therefore, as
interpreted by the Supreme Court "knowledge' would be an awareness
on the part of the person indicating his state of mind. The provision
or the statute nowhere contemplates that the person concerned
should investigate as to whether the offence under the Act is
committed or not. In the present matter, it can be deduced from the
circumstances and from the material in the form of charge-sheet
J-apl1005.25 final.odt 11/13
placed on record that neither of the three applicants had knowledge,
and in fact had no reason to be aware about the non-applicant No.2
being minor and that an offence punishable under Sections 4,6,19
and 21 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 has been committed against her. They were in fact doing their
professional duty and advised her as per their medical knowledge and
acumen. The provision of Section 19 cannot be stretched to the
extent that any medical professional doing his professional duty
would be implicated/ roped in under the said provision. If the said
provision is interpreted in that fashion, it would result in disastrous,
repercussion, and no professional (especially medical professional)
would be doing his duty with utmost diligence as is expected of
him/her.
14. From the above discussion it is clear that no offence as
contemplated under Sections 19 and 20 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicants
herein.
15. As far as offences under various Sections of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are concerned, Section 64(2)(f) also cannot
be attracted against the present applicants. As far as offence under
Section 64(2)(i) and 64(2)(m) are concerned, they are not
attributed to the present applicants. Thus, no offence as stated in
the First Information Report and the consequent charge-sheet is
J-apl1005.25 final.odt 12/13
made out against all the applicants. It would, therefore, an abuse
of process of the Court if the criminal proceedings against the
applicants are continued. The situation of would squarely fall
within well settled parameters of the State of Haryana and others
Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and
more particularly clause 1,3 and 5 of paragraph 105 read as under :
"1. Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
5 . Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused."
16. We, therefore, quash and set aside the First
Information Report bearing No.0259/2025 and Charge-sheet
No.451/2025 as far as applicants are concerned for the offence
punishable under Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 65(1) and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections
4,6,19 and 21 of the Prevention of Children from sexual Offences
Act, 2012. Hence, we proceed to pass following order :
J-apl1005.25 final.odt 13/13
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application (APL) Nos.1005/2025,
1021/2025 and 1040/2025 are allowed.
(ii) The First Information Report bearing No.0259/2025,
and Charge-sheet No.451/2025 registered with Police Station
Pusad City, District Yavatmal for the offence punishable under
Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 65(1) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 4,6,19 and 21
of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are
quash and set aside as far as applicants are concerned.
(iii) The applications are disposed of.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/10/2025 16:36:12
