The Court affirmed women's autonomy in deciding to terminate pregnancies, emphasizing that no consent from their husbands is legally required, and highlighted the necessity of timely complaints in assessing the legitimacy of claims.

ORDER :

E.V. VENUGOPAL, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. seeking to call for the entire records relating to F.I.R.No.693 of 2024 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad (for short, “the trial Court”) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 315 of I.P.C. and Section 175 (3) of B.N.S.S. and quash the same.

2. Heard Mr.Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Mr.Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned counsel for unofficial respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2/de facto complainant are wife and husband; that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in- law of the complainant; that during May 2023, the complainant came to know that his wife had become pregnant in April 2022; that she neither informed the complainant nor his parents about the same and aborted the pregnancy; that she has secretly consulted the complainant's family Gynaecologist Dr.Himabindu Veerla at Rainbow Children's Hospital, Banjara Hills, without the knowledge of the complainant for termination of the pregnancy; that the medical records of the Hospital also confirmed the pregnancy; that the complainant is the father of the foetus, and the abortion was done without his knowledge or consent; that when the complainant questioned her about the same, she left his company and went to reside with her parents. Thus, respondent No.2 alleges that petitioner No.1 has resorted to an illegal abortion under the influence of her parents to terminate the pregnancy; that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have also actively abetted the offence; that Abortion is against the values of the Islamic religion and a big sin under Shariat Law and equally penal in nature; that the accused persons have committed such a major sin knowingly. Basing on the said facts, the present crime is registered for the alleged offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1, being the mother of the foetus has every right under Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act to decide whether to continue with the pregnancy or to abort the foetus and that there is no criminal element involved in getting the foetus aborted. He further submits that the impugned F.I.R. is in contravention of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Malhotra Vs. Ajay Pasreecha , wherein it is held that it is the prerogative and free will of the wife to decide to bear a child and that she has an unfettered right to terminate her pregnancy.

5. He further states that the pregnancy of the petitioner was only for four (4) weeks and that her last menstruation period was on 27.02.2022 and she opted for abortion on 07.04.2022. He states that the pregnancy was also a result of failure of contraception i.e., Copper-T which was placed to avoid pregnancy and that as a counter blast to the case filed by petitioner No.1 under Section 498-A of I.P.C., respondent No.2 filed the present complaint. Relying on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in X Vs. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and Others , Civil Appeal No.5802 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (c) No.12612 of 2022) and the decision passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Mangla Dogra and Others Vs. Anil Kumar Malhotra and Others , [2011 Law Suit (P&H) 2580] he seeks to allow the Criminal Pet