Madras High Court

Dr.Banumathi vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By on 26 September, 2025

                                                                                Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2487 of 2025


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                        Reserved on                     24.09.2025
                                        Pronounced on                   26.09.2025

                                                          CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                           Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2487 of 2025
                                                       and
                                       Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.1699 & 1702 of 2025

                    Dr.Banumathi                                                         ... Petitioner

                                                              Vs.

                    1.The State of Tamilnadu rep. by
                      The Inspector of Police,
                      AWPS Thiruppathur,
                      Thiruppathur,
                      Sivaganga District.
                      (Crime No.5 of 2021)

                    2.A.Simon George,
                      S/o.Alphonse,
                      Child Welfare Officer,
                      Sivaganga District.                                                ... Respondents

                    Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya
                    Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records relating to the
                    charge sheet in SPL.S.C.No.29 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for
                    Exclusive Trial under POSCO Act cases, Sivaganga and quash the said
                    proceedings as against the petitioner.


                    _____________
                    Page No. 1 of 11


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )
                                                                                   Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2487 of 2025


                                    For Petitioner        : Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan

                                    For R1                : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
                                                            Additional Public Prosecutor

                                    For R2                : No appearance

                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final

report in SPL.S.C.No.29 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for

Exclusive Trial of POCSO Act Cases, Sivagangai, filed against the

petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 21(1) of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter

referred to as 'POCSO Act'] and Section 80 of the Juvenile Justice (Care

and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as 'JJ Act'].

2. The allegation in the final report is that the victim girl, who had

a love affair with A1 when she was a minor, had sexual intercourse with

him, as a result of which she became pregnant; that she was admitted to

the hospital belonging to the petitioner; that the petitioner, without

maintaining any records as required under the Rules, had performed a

surgery on the victim girl to deliver the child; and that the petitioner,

without informing either the District Child Welfare Officer or the police,

_____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )

had given the child in adoption to another person and thus committed the

aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

allegation, even if accepted as true, would not constitute the offences,

since there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had knowledge about

the commission of the offence under the POCSO Act; that the statement

of the Child Welfare Officer, who is the second respondent herein, is

based only on the information she received and hence her evidence is

hearsay; that the doctors cannot be prosecuted in such a manner; that the

petitioner, aged about 75 years, is a person of good reputation and vast

experience; that the allegation regarding adoption said to have been given

by one of the hospital staff, namely Selvi, would not make the petitioner

liable for the offence under Section 80 of the JJ Act, and therefore, sought

for quashing the impugned proceedings as against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first

respondent, per contra, submitted that the question as to whether the

petitioner had knowledge that the victim girl was a minor cannot be

adjudicated in the quash petition; that there is evidence to show that the

_____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )

child was given in adoption by the staff of the hospital belonging to the

petitioner; and that therefore, the petitioner is liable for the offences

punishable under Section 80 of the JJ Act.

5. The second respondent, Child Welfare Officer, earlier appeared

in person and this Court had recorded the statement of the Government

Advocate that he would file vakalat on her behalf. However, it appears

that the Government Advocate has not filed any vakalat.

6. The primary allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner,

being a doctor, knew that the victim was a minor and, after conducting the

surgery on her, had not informed either the Child Welfare Officer or the

police. Dr.Vijayan Mathamadakki, who has been cited as a witness by the

prosecution, as he had performed the surgery on the victim girl to deliver

the child, in his statement under Section 161(3) of the Cr.P.C., had stated

that the victim had informed him that she was aged about 19 years.

7. The petitioner has produced the Admission Register maintained

at the hospital belonging to her, which has not been disputed by the

prosecution. In the said Admission Register, the consent of the father of

_____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )

the victim girl for admitting his daughter for delivery is recorded, and the

age of the victim has been shown as 19 years.

8. In the light of the overwhelming evidence, the reliance placed by

the prosecution on the statement of the second respondent/defacto

complainant, Child Welfare Officer, recorded during the course of

investigation, to the effect that the petitioner had performed the surgery on

the minor victim with the requisite knowledge and had not informed the

police, cannot be accepted. In similar circumstances, this Court in Dr.

Jenbagalakshmi vs. State, rep. by its Inspector of Police, All Women

Police Station, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli District and another, by the

order dated 20.12.2025 rendered in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15947 of 2024,

quashed the proceedings with the following observations:

“13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SR.Tessy Jose and others Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2018) 8 SCC 292, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the knowledge requirement foisted on the appellants cannot be that they ought to have deduced from circumstances that an offence has been committed and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-

“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

_____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )

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.

...

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. In a similar case, Dr.Latha N.N. Vs. State of Karnataka by Hebbagodi Police Station and another (Criminal Petition No.3694 of 2023 dated 27.03.2024), the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru, considered a scenario where a Doctor treated a victim girl, who claimed to be 18 years old. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in SR.Tessy Jose's case above referred, the High Court has held that continuing proceedings against the Doctor would amount to an abuse of process, given the nature of allegations and the discharge of the co-accused (4, 5 and 7) by the trial

_____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )

Court. Consequently, the Court quashed the case against the Doctor.

15. In the case of Dr.Lata Krishnaraddi Mankali Vs. State of Karnataka through Ankola Police Station (Crl.RP.No.100169 of 2020 dated 02.02.2024), the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, while considering the statement of the victim girl and her mother, who brought her to the hospital that the victim girl was aged 18 years, has observed as follows:-

“15. It is argued by the counsel for the State as the victim girl was a minor therefore, accused no.2 should have taken due care in finding as to how the victim became pregnant. Fastening the criminal liability on the basis above allegations is too far fetched. Provisions of Section 19 and 21 as stated above put an obligation on the person to inform the relevant authorities inter alia when she or he has knowledge of an offence under the Act has 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 petitioner was not careful enough to find the cause of pregnancy as the victim is only 18 years of age at the time of delivering, but, that would not be translated into criminal liability.

16. In view of the clear provisions of the POCSO Act, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the petitioner had a knowledge about this empirical knowledge of a commission of rape on the victim girl by the accused no.1.

.....

19. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no proper evidence brought on record by

_____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )

the prosecution to show that this petitioner/ accused no.2 is involved in the commission of the crime in the manner alleged by the prosecution. So to say, I am of the opinion that there is no evidence implicating accused no.2 for the offence under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act. Based upon is grave suspicion story of the prosecution, cannot be believed. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.”

16. The precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are directly relevant to the present case. As the Hon'ble Apex Court has astutely noted, the petitioner bore no responsibility to verify the victim girl's age or ascertain whether offences had been committed. In light of this, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that the provision of Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act are inapplicable to the petitioner.”

9. The above observations squarely apply to the facts of the instant

case. Hence, the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence punishable

under Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act is misconceived and is liable to be

quashed.

10. Similarly, there is no evidence on record to show that the child

of the victim girl was given in adoption with the knowledge of the

petitioner. There cannot be any vicarious liability imposed on the

petitioner, even assuming that the staff of her hospital had given the child

in adoption without following the provisions of the JJ Act. Therefore, the

_____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )

prosecution of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 80