IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD * * *

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3011 of 2025 Between:

Mr. Amtul Vakil Sidra and others Petitioners Versus The State of Telangana and another Respondents ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 08.09.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _______________________

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL + CRIMINAL PETITION No.3011 of 2025 % 08.09.2025 Between:

# Amtul Vakil Sidra and others … Petitioners And # The State of Telangana and another … Respondents !Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. Mohd. Adnan ^Counsel for the respondents : Mr. E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 state Mr. Khaja Vizarath Ali, for the contesting respondent No.2.

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. Civil Appeal No.5802 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12612 of 2022)

2. 2011 Law Suit (P & H) 2580

3. (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225 4. (1981) 1 S.C.C. 608

5. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 938

6. (2023) 20 Supreme Court Cases 194

7. (2023) S.C.C. On Line SC 946 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.3011 OF 2025

O R D E R:

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 furthe