Madras High Court: In a criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records in connection with FIR on the file of the All-Women Police Station, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli District and quash the same, K. Murali Shankar, J. while quashing the FIR held that the ingredients of Section 312, Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) are not met against the third accused. Permitting prosecution would be unnecessary, unwarranted, and amount to an abuse of process of law.
Background
The prosecution’s case centers around the tragic events involving a 17-year-old girl who, after being admitted to the Trichy Government Hospital by her maternal aunt, was found to be pregnant. The victim was informed to have been in a relationship with a man, and an attempt to terminate the pregnancy led to complications. The maternal aunt, seeking an abortion, initially took the victim to Sudharsana Hospital on 24-02-2024, where an ultrasound revealed that the victim was 9 weeks pregnant. The victim was brought back to the same hospital on 26-02-2024 for an abortion procedure, but complications arose due to the victim’s non-cooperation, leading to excessive bleeding. As a result, the victim was rushed to Trichy Government Hospital on 27-02-2024 in a serious condition. Despite efforts to treat her, the victim died later in the hospital, prompting the second respondent to file a complaint.
The third accused, however, presents a different account of events. On 24-02-2024, the victim visited the third accused’s hospital as an outpatient, complaining of abdominal pain and delayed periods. After conducting an ultrasound, it was confirmed that the victim was 9 weeks pregnant. The third accused questioned the victim about her age and marital status, to which the victim disclosed she was 18 years old and unmarried. The victim and her maternal aunt requested an abortion, but the third accused refused, citing the need to report the matter to the authorities due to the victim’s unmarried status. On 26-02-2024, the victim returned to the hospital, this time with complaints of dizziness and weakness. Her blood test revealed severe anemia, and despite the insistence of the victim and her maternal aunt to proceed with an abortion, the third accused again refused, advising them to go to the Government Hospital.
Later, the maternal aunt requested that the third accused arrange for one unit of blood, which was provided, and the victim’s condition was stabilized. However, by 6:00 p.m., the victim developed a high fever and by 7:00 p.m., she experienced vaginal bleeding with clots, though the victim had flushed the contents before staff could inspect. Despite non-cooperation from the victim, the third accused and her staff attempted to examine the situation. The victim’s fluctuating blood pressure required additional blood units, so the third accused arranged an ambulance and transferred the victim to Government Hospital.
The third accused claims to have been in constant communication with the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of the Government Hospital to update them on the patient’s condition. The victim ultimately passed away on 29-02-2024, and the third accused denies the allegations in the FIR, asserting that the accusations against her are false and that she has not committed any offense.
The FIR was registered against the third accused of the alleged offences under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6(1) and 21(1) of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) and Section 312 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Thus, the present petition was filed.
Analysis and Decision
After taking note of SR. Tessy Jose v. State of Kerala, (2018) 18 SCC 292, the Court said that the third accused bore no responsibility to verify the victim girl’s age or ascertain whether offences had been committed. Considering this, the Court concluded that the provision of Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act was inapplicable to the third accused.
Taking note of Section 312 IPC, the Court observed that if the miscarriage was not caused in good faith to save the woman’s life, the punishment is up to three years imprisonment or fine or both and if the woman was quick with child, the punishment is up to seven years imprisonment and fine. Causing miscarriage involves intentionally or knowingly causing a woman to miscarry, except under circumstances where it is medically justified.
The Court noted that the third accused contended that no abortion was performed on the victim girl at Sudharsana Hospital, instead treatment was given due to her weak condition and low hemoglobin levels. Further, the postmortem certificate concluded that the victim girl likely died from hemorrhagic shock due to lower abdominal region manipulation or multiple blunt force injuries to abdomen. However, the prosecution does not specifically allege that the petitioner or the staff at Sudharsana Hospital performed such an action.
The Court emphasized the significant impact of false complaints against doctors, particularly in the case of a 70-year-old Senior Doctor/Gynecologist who underwent multiple investigations and was forced to obtain anticipatory bail. The FIR was filed based solely on the hearsay statement of the second respondent, without any preliminary inquiry by the investigating officer. The Court highlighted the detrimental effects of such actions on medical professionals, stressing that this type of treatment could discourage doctors from taking necessary risks to save lives, leading them to adopt a “play-it-safe” approach that ultimately harms patient care.
The Court pointed out the immense stress and damage to reputation caused to doctors by such false complaints, which can undermine their ability to practice medicine. It called for society to accord doctors the respect and dignity they deserve, as failure to do so could have severe consequences, including demotivation among medical professionals, decreased access to quality healthcare, and erosion of trust in the medical community. The Court further noted that preserving the sanctity of the medical profession is crucial to ensuring exceptional care, innovation, and dedication to saving lives.
The Court referred to Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, which grants immunity to registered medical practitioners from prosecution under the Penal Code, 1860 when pregnancy termination is carried out in accordance with the Act’s provisions. The Court clarified that the conditions set forth in Section 312 IPC were not met in this case, and allowing prosecution would be both unnecessary and an abuse of the process of law. As a result, the FIR filed against the third accused was quashed.
[Dr. Jenbagalakshmi v State of Tamil Nadu, Crl. O.P.(MD)No.15947 of 2024, decided on 20-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel
For Respondents: Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
