[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Aarti Uike ( Vaskle) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2026
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 947 of 2026
Dr. Aarti Uike (Vaskle) W/o Dr. Fulendra Uike Aged About 45 Years
M.D. Radiologist, Registration No. C.G.M.C. 4326/2012,
Rajnandgaon Diagnostic Center And Hospital, Wardhman Nagar,
G.E. Road Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (CG)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Bortalav, District Rajnandgaon (CG)
2. Abcd (Description of Complainant and Victim Is In Close
Envelop)
... Respondent(s)
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.04.06
17:53:00
+0530
Order Sheet
06/04/2026 Heard Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel
for the petitioner, and Mr. Shailendra Sharma,
learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the
State/respondent No. 1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
as per the prosecution case, a written complaint was
lodged on 31.12.2025 by the mother of the victim at
Police Chowki Chichola, District Rajnandgaon,
whereupon a zero FIR was registered and the case
diary was transmitted to Police Station Bortalav for
further investigation.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the victim, aged about 15 years,
had initially complained of vomiting in March, 2025
and was treated by a local doctor. Subsequently, in
September, 2025, upon complaint of abdominal
movement, she was taken to a doctor at Pathri,
where it was revealed that she was carrying a
pregnancy of approximately eight months. Upon
inquiry, the victim allegedly disclosed that she had
acquaintance with her schoolmate (a minor), and
alleged that on 12.02.2025, during a family function,
he had established physical relations with her without
her consent.
It is further contended by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the victim was thereafter taken
for sonography at Rajnandgaon and was
subsequently shifted to a relative's village, and
eventually brought back for delivery, where she gave
birth to a male child at Krishna Hospital. It is also
alleged that the newborn child was given in adoption
at the instance of certain co-accused persons. He
also contented that initially the FIR was registered
only against the said minor accused for offences
under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and a
separate charge-sheet has been filed against him, he
being a juvenile. The present petitioner has been
implicated subsequently during investigation solely
on the allegation that she had conducted sonography
of the victim and failed to report the matter under
Section 21 of the POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner, being a medical professional, had
duly complied with all statutory requirements under
the PC-PNDT Act and Rules, including forwarding of
the requisite Form 'F' to the competent authority, and
there is no material to suggest any lapse on her part.
He further submits that the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was arrested on 08.03.2026 for the alleged
offence under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which is
bailable, and was released on bail. A supplementary
charge-sheet has thereafter been filed implicating
multiple accused persons, including the present
petitioner, on vague and omnibus allegations.
Assailing the prosecution, learned counsel for
the petitioner contends that a bare and meaningful
reading of the FIR, statements recorded under
Section 161 of the BNSS, and the charge-sheet
would unequivocally demonstrate that there is no
material whatsoever to establish that the petitioner
had any "knowledge" or "apprehension" of the
commission of an offence, as contemplated under
Section 19 of the POCSO Act, which is a sine qua
non for attracting Section 21 thereof.
It is submitted that in the absence of any such
foundational requirement, mere conduct of a
diagnostic procedure in the ordinary course of
professional duty cannot give rise to criminal liability.
The prosecution has failed to establish any nexus
between the petitioner and the alleged offence, and
her implication is wholly mechanical and without
application of mind.
Learned counsel further submits that the
allegations are vague, omnibus, and do not disclose
any specific overt act attributable to the petitioner.
Continuation of the criminal proceedings, in such
circumstances, would amount to gross abuse of the
process of law.
Having considered the submissions and upon
perusal of the material available on record, this Court
finds that the issue raised requires consideration.
Issue notice to respondent No. 2 by speed post.
Learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf
of respondent No. 1; accordingly, issuance of notice
to respondent No. 1 stands dispensed with.
Process fee be paid within one week for
respondent No. 2.
Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
Two weeks' time is granted to learned State
counsel as well as respondent No. 2 to file their reply-
affidavits. Thereafter, two weeks' time is granted to
learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder-
affidavit, if any.
List the matter thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings
pending before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in
Special Case No. 7 of 2026, so far as they relate to
the present petitioner, shall remain stayed. However,
proceedings against the remaining co-accused shall
continue in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
