JUDGMENT : A practicing advocate of this court has, by filing this PIL, invited attention of the court towards an unfortunate and shocking incident, which took place at Sikar, in the intervening night of 10th and 11th of September, 2015. The allegation is that when a minor girl aged about 5 years was sleeping with her mother near Kalyan Circle at Sikar, she was abducted by someone and thereafter subjected to rape and thrown in garbage. The mother earns livelihood by selling crockery items at different places at Udaipurwati in district Jhunjhunu. She had gone to Jeen Mata, a religious place near Sikar, for selling vessels and thereafter returned to Sikar. She slept along-with her children outside the railway station. When she woke up at around 2-2.30 AM in the night, she did not find her daughter aged about 5 years. She immediately approached nearby police outpost at Kalyan Circle and complained about the same but no heed was paid to her prayer. Then she went to police station Kotwali, Sikar, but there also complaint was not registered. She was then driven to Police Station Mahila Thana, but the FIR was not lodged there as well and she was asked to trace out the child on her own. The helpless mother herself went in search of her minor girl child and on following day at 7.00 AM, she found her in shrubs of a dirty pit near railway station in unconscious condition. The girl child was profusely bleeding from her genitals. The mother immediately took her to hospital. Further allegation is that even in hospital, two doctors and one male nurse, did not attend her because no first information report was registered. This incident was widely reported in media. It appears that the FIR was registered at the instance of mother of victim later in the day on 11.03.2015. The Superintendent of Police, Sikar, himself inspected the place of incident and gave necessary directions to the Investigating Officer, who also inspected the place of incident and prepared a site plan and also recorded the statement of complainant under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.'). The Forensic Team also inspected the place of incident on 11.09.2015. The Investigating Officer collected the medical report of the victim and recorded the statement of treating doctors on 12.09.2015. The Forensic Team also inspected the place of incident on 11.09.2015. The Investigating Officer collected the medical report of the victim and recorded the statement of treating doctors on 12.09.2015. Two persons named in the FIR were interrogated on 11.09.2015, but they denied having committed rape upon the victim girl. Investigating Officer obtained the video footage of suspected persons. A reward of Rs.5000/-was also announced for those, who inform about the accused. Ultimately, the team headed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Sikar, Station House Officers, Ranoli and Dadiya were sent to Bikaner and the police team arrested a youth named Pawan Kumar Vishnoi S/o Manphool Vishnoi, from Bikaner, on 16.09.2015. Charge-sheet against him was filed for offence under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(I) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and Sections 5(i)(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'the Act of 2012'). The victim was referred to J.K. Loan Hospital, Jaipur, where she was subjected to multiple number of surgeries to save her life. When the matter was listed before this court on 15.10.2015, reliance was placed on earlier Division Bench judgment of this court in Suo Motu Vs. State of Rajasthan – 2007 (2) WLC (Raj.) 584. Learned Advocate General was directed to seek instructions in the matter and inform the court as to what steps have been taken by the State to comply with the directions enumerated in paragraph 14 of the judgment, supra. Learned Advocate General has informed the court that the trial against him is nearing completion and the matter is fixed tomorrow i.e. 09.12.2015 for final argument. Learned Advocate General has filed written submission in this behalf, and submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Sikar, has prima facie found negligence of Shri Laxman Singh, Sub Inspector of Police, who was In-charge of Police Outpost Kalyan Circle, Shri Deepak Yadav, Sub Inspector, Police Kotwali, Sikar, Shri Rakesh Kumar, Constable No.782, Police Outpost Kalyan Circle, Sikar, in discharge of their duties and they were placed under suspension by orders dated 11.09.2015 and 12.09.2015. The Superintendent of Police, Sikar, ordered a preliminary enquiry into the matter and appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Sikar City, as preliminary enquiry officer vide order dated 11.09.2015, who in his report, apart from those three officials, also found Shri Prabhu Dayal, Sub Inspector, Police Kotwali, Sikar, negligent in discharge of duty, by not helping the informant in search of her daughter. It was thereafter that Shri Prabhu Dayal was also placed under suspension vide order dated 15.09.2015. Learned Advocate General submitted that the Additional District Collector, Sikar made a preliminary enquiry into the allegation of negligence of the medical officials in not timely providing treatment to the victim. In that preliminary enquiry, he prima facie found Shri Rajpal Singh, Male Nurse, Dr. Harphool Singh Dhayal, Gynecologist and Dr. Kalpana Meena, Surgeon, guilty of negligence. The Director, Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide order dated 15.09.2015, has placed them under suspension. Learned Advocate General submits that while charge-sheets have been served on all the aforementioned four police officials, the explanation of the officers/officials of the Medical and Health Department have been called for and thereafter the decision to issue them charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, would be taken. Shri Anoop Dhand, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that according to Section 166A of the IPC, whoever, being a public servant, disobeys any direction of the law, is liable to be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine. According to Section 166-B of the IPC, whoever, being in charge of a hospital, public or private, whether run by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any other person, contravenes the provisions of section 357C of the Cr.P.C., shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. These officials are also liable to be prosecuted for offence under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the Act of 2012. Even sanction is not required to be obtained for the prosecution. These officials are also liable to be prosecuted for offence under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the Act of 2012. Even sanction is not required to be obtained for the prosecution. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that apart from immediate initiation of disciplinary enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, regular criminal case be registered against aforesaid officials on the facts obtaining in the present case. He also argued that amount of compensation paid to the victim should be suitably enhanced inasmuch only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-has been paid to her from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, and, according to him, it should be enhanced at-least to Rs.5,00,000/-. Shri N.M. Lodha, learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents State, submitted that as far as compensation is concerned, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-has been paid to the victim under Victim Compensation Scheme and that further amount of Rs.2,50,000/-shall be disbursed to her soon upon completion of trial. The ex-gratia amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund has been paid to her over and above the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, under Victim Compensation Scheme. Learned Advocate General submitted that it is wrong to suggest that the Government, on coming to know of the incident, did not take any action, but the fact is that the Government immediately swung into action and ordered thorough investigation. Looking to the nature of injuries and age of victim, victim was immediately referred to J.K. Loan Hospital, Jaipur, where she was provided with best of treatment. Already the guilty officials are being proceeded against in disciplinary proceedings. There is therefore no need for the present to prosecute them under aforementioned provisions of IPC or the Act of 2012. As far as payment of compensation is concerned, we, for the present, refrain from passing any further order except observing that the respondents shall produce before the court a scheme for disbursement/utilization aforesaid amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, which is to be used for the welfare of the girl child. Thereafter amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, that may be disbursed on conclusion of trial, shall be also used depending on such scheme. The court may also then take a view whether to award any further compensation or not. Thereafter amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, that may be disbursed on conclusion of trial, shall be also used depending on such scheme. The court may also then take a view whether to award any further compensation or not. Clause (c) of Section 166A of the IPC provides that whoever, being a public servant, fails to record any information given to him under sub-section (1) of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation to cognizable offence punishable under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354B, section 370, section 370A, section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine. Similarly, Section 166B of the IPC also provides that whoever, being in charge of a hospital, public or private, whether run by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any other person, contravenes the provisions of section 357C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. Section 357C of the Cr.P.C., inter-alia, provides that all hospitals, public or private, whether run by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any other person, shall immediately provide the first-aid or medical treatment, free of cost, to the victims of any offence covered under Section 326A, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D or Section 376E of the Indian Penal Code, and shall immediately inform the police of such incident. Apart from above referred to provisions, Section 19 of the Act of 2012 mandates that notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C., any person (including the child), who has apprehension that an offence under this Act is likely to be committed or has knowledge that such an offence has been committed, he shall provide such information to (a) the Special Juvenile Police Unit; or (b) the local police. According to subsection (2) every report given under sub-section (1) shall be ascribed an entry number and recorded in writing; be read over to the informant and shall be entered in a book to be kept by the Police Unit. According to subsection (2) every report given under sub-section (1) shall be ascribed an entry number and recorded in writing; be read over to the informant and shall be entered in a book to be kept by the Police Unit. Section 21 of the Act of 2012 further provides that any person, who fails to report the commission of an offence under sub-section (1) of Section 19 or Section 20 or who fails to record such offence under sub-section (2) of Section 19 (which is what happened in the present case) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. Section 27 of the Act of 2012 also mandates immediate medical examination of a child in respect to whom any offence has been committed under this Act notwithstanding that a First Information Report or complaint has not been registered for the offences under this Act, be conducted in accordance with Section 164A of the Cr.P.C. Rule 5(3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012 provides that no medical practitioner, hospital or other medical facility centre rendering emergency medical care to a child shall demand any legal or magisterial requisition or other documentation as a pre-requisite to rendering such care. Sections 166A and 166B IPC and Section 357C Cr.P.C. were purposely introduced by way of amendment on the basis of the report of Justice J.S. Verma Committee, which was set up in the aftermath of huge uprising throughout the country following Nirbhay's rape incident in Delhi. The Parliament has introduced various amendments in the IPC, Cr.P.C. and the Act of 2012, whereunder stringent penal provisions, not only against accused actually involved in the incident of rape but also against guilty officials of Police Department who, despite being made aware of offence, fail to take immediate action against accused and also the officials of the Medical Department, who neglect in providing immediate medical aid/treatment to the victim. All the aforesaid provisions are clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. When Parliament by amendment has purposely introduced Sections 166A and 166B in the IPC and also made this inaction/omission as provided for by Section 19 of the Act of 2012 as the offences under Section 21, supra, there is no reason why the guilty officials should not be proceeded against for determination of their criminal liability. When Parliament by amendment has purposely introduced Sections 166A and 166B in the IPC and also made this inaction/omission as provided for by Section 19 of the Act of 2012 as the offences under Section 21, supra, there is no reason why the guilty officials should not be proceeded against for determination of their criminal liability. Disciplinary proceedings initiated against them would be in addition to, but not in lieu of, their criminal prosecution. When the law specifically provides for the same, we see no reason for not prosecuting them. We therefore direct that in order to launch prosecution against guilty officials of the Police Department as well as Medical and Health Department, necessary steps be taken by the State to set the law into motion. As far as issuance of charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 to the police officials is concerned, we direct that disciplinary proceedings in that charge-sheet be expedited. At the same time, we also direct that steps shall be taken to expedite framing and serving of charge-sheet to the officials of the Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan. Progress with regard to aforementioned directions should be placed before this court on or before the next date of hearing. Respondents shall also apprise the court about the steps taken for compliance of the directions contained in para 14 of the judgment of the Division Bench in Suo Motu Vs. State of Rajasthan – 2007 (2) WLC (Raj.) 584. The matter to come up on 08.02.2016.