of Section 19 of the POCSO Act the petitioner was duty bound to report the same in the local police station but it appears that instead of doing the same, he simply opined for the immediate termination of pregnancy which was carrying for about six months. Ultimately the complaint was lodged by the uncle/complainant afterwards on 2.3.2022. Accordingly, Section 21 of the said Act may have attracted in the present context against the petitioner as it is the fact which constitutes offence. Apart from the other allegations against petitioner, allegation levelled by Superintendent District Hospital vide his memo no. 64/1(4) supdt. dated , 7.3.2018 also exists where Superintendent has reported at the local police station about the allegedly illegal abortion conducted by the petitioner. 22. Now whether the said abortion was illegally conducted by the petitioner or not and whether opinion of other doctors was needed to be taken by the petitioner, before aborting the girl or not, can only be decided if the parties go on trial and the proceeding cannot be quashed at the threshold, simply because the petitioner noted in the prescription, issued by the petitioner himself, that the abortion is required in order to save her life. Whether abortion was at all required to save her life or not can be the subject matter of scrutiny and which may be required to be decided in consequence of expert opinion but at this stage, all these facts and circumstances, prima facie discloses cognizable offence against the present petitioner. So it is not a fit case where the proceeding can be quashed against petitioner invoking power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
