Recently, the Delhi High Court examined a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), challenging the legality of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for an alleged offence under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petition questioned the sustainability of a summoning order passed in a private criminal complaint arising out of matrimonial discord.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a private criminal complaint filed by the respondent-husband against the petitioner and her family members, alleging offences under various provisions of the IPC, including Section 312. The parties married in April 2022 and subsequently developed matrimonial disputes. The complainant alleged that the Petitioner made repeated financial demands and later underwent medical termination of pregnancy at about fourteen weeks without his consent and in violation of law. The Metropolitan Magistrate summoned the accused for multiple offences. In revision, the Sessions Court restricted the summoning to the Petitioner alone for the offence under Section 312 IPC, prompting the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the Petitioner argued that no offence under Section 312 IPC was made out as the termination of pregnancy was carried out lawfully within the statutory limit and under medical supervision in accordance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The counsel submitted that the procedure was undertaken in good faith due to mental distress arising from matrimonial discord, and that criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the Respondent-husband contended that the Petitioner unlawfully terminated the pregnancy without sufficient cause or consent, attracting liability under Section 312 IPC. The counsel argued that there was no marital discord at the relevant time and that the summoning order disclosed a prima facie case warranting trial.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is an intrinsic part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Referring to settled constitutional jurisprudence, the Court emphasised that “the decision in regard to the pregnancy must be of the woman alone” and that forcing continuation of an unwanted pregnancy would violate bodily autonomy and dignity.
Placing reliance on Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, the Court reiterated that “a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of ‘personal liberty’ as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India” and that reproductive choice includes both the right to procreate as well as the right to abstain from procreation.
The Court further relied on X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, holding that “the right to decisional autonomy means that women may choose the course of their lives” and that termination of pregnancy is firmly rooted in the right to bodily autonomy. It noted that mental health cannot be narrowly construed and must be assessed in the context of the woman’s “actual or reasonably foreseeable environment” as contemplated under the MTP Act.
Applying these principles, the Court observed that marital discord can cause grave mental trauma, which squarely falls within the protective framework of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. It held that when termination is carried out within the statutory limit and under medical supervision, “it cannot be said that an offence under Section 312 IPC is made out.”
The decision of the Court:
The Court set aside the summoning order under Section 312 IPC and discharged the petitioner, holding that no offence was made out as the termination was lawful under the MTP Act.
Case Title: X v. State & Anr
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 7984/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Atul Jain
Counsel for the State: APP Shoaib Haider, Adv. Shefali Menezes
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
