- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8067 CRL.P No. 5037 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5037 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. DR. SATHISH BHAT, S/O LATE PUTTANNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT DVANANTHARI NILAYA, MAIN ROAD, HOSANGANDI, ASHWINI CLINIC, HOSANGADI, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 282 2. DR. RAGHAVENDRA UPADHYA, S/O LATE SUBRAYA UPADHYA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, VIKRAM SCANNING CENTRE, NEAR PARIJATHA HOTEL, MAIN ROAD, KUNDAPURA, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201 R/AT KEREKATTE, BASRUR VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 211 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM M., SR. ADV., SRI. PRASAD HEGDE K.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHANKARANARAYANA P.S KUNDAPURA CIRCLE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001 Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8067 CRL.P No. 5037 of 2022 2. SMT. KAPILA V., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, PROTECTION OFFICER, DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION UNIT, RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL UDUPI TALUK - 576 104 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 R2 - SD - U/R) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 01.03.2022 BEARING NO.3/2022 FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3) BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR OFFENCE P/U/S.19 OF POCSO ACT 2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF SPL.C.NO.28/2020 INITIATED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 AT UDUPI UDUPI DISTRICT RAISED OUT OF FIR IN CR.NO.3/2022 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3) FOR OFFENCE P/U/S.19 OF POCSO ACT 2012 VIDE ANNEXURE H. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.2 and 3 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.3 of 2022 of Shankaranarayana Police Station pending in Special Case No.28/2022 on the file of the learned Additional - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8067 CRL.P No. 5037 of 2022 District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Udupi for the offence punishable under Section 19 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on the basis of the information by the informant against accused No.1 alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 376(1) of IPC and Sections 5(J)(II) and 5(l)(6) of POCSO Act, Crime No.3/2022 came to be registered with Shankaranarayana Police Station. During investigation, it was found that accused Nos.2 and 3, being the medical practitioners have not reported the fact that the victim who is the minor girl was pregnant as a result of the act committed by accused No.1. Therefore, charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 19 of POCSO Act. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that accused No.3, being the Radiologist and accused No.2, being the Doctor who attended the victim girl, came to know that the minor girl was pregnant as a result of the sexual offense but they never reported the same to the police, thereby committed the offence under Section 19 of the POCSO Act. Now the petitioners are - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8067 CRL.P No. 5037 of 2022 before this Court seeking to quash he criminal proceedings initiated against them. 3. Heard Sri Aruna Shyam M., learned Senior Advocate for Sri.Prasad Hegde K.B., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is served but un- represented. Perused the materials on record. 4. Learned Senior advocate for the petitioners contended that even though there was a full-fledged trial held against accused No.1 for the grave offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and under Sections 5(l)(6) of POCSO Act, he was acquitted as none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Under such circumstances. The petitioners are entitled for the reliefs. 5. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that there are medical records to show that the victim was a minor, who was impregnanted by the act of accused No.1. The victim was examined by the petitioners namely accused Nos.2 and 3. But, they failed to report the matter to the police as required under Section 19 of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8067 CRL.P No. 5037 of 2022 the POCSO Act. There is violation of mandatory requirement of law and thereby, prima-facie, petitioners have committed the said offences and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to grant of any relief. 6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 7. Even though serious allegations are made against accused No.1, it is stated that he was already acquitted by the Trial Court. The allegations against the petitioners and allegations against accused No.1 are entirely different. The records produced before the Court disclose that accused No.2 being the Medical Officer examined the victim girl and came to know that she is a minor and she had become pregnant. Accused No.3 being the Radiologist, examined the victim girl - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8067 CRL.P No. 5037 of 2022 and as per the report she was pregnant by 29-30 weeks. Inspite of the petitioners coming to know that the minor girl is the victim and she became pregnant as a result of the sexual offence, they have not reported the matter to the police as required under the POCSO Act and thereby committed the offence under Section 19 of the POCSO Act. Acquittal of accused No.1 will not have any bearing on the allegations made against the petitioners. Since there are medical records which prima facie disclose the commission of the offences by the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for grant any relief. Hence, I answer the above point in the ‘negative’ and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal petition is dismissed. ii. The observations made above are only for the purpose of disposal of the petition. It alone shall not influence the Trial Court during trial. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6