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. 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 Petition. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, by filing a memo along with whatsapp conversation of petitioner No.1 with one Dr.Hanna Burhaan, resident of U.S.A., contends that petitioner No.1 has committed abortion without informing respondent No.2 about the pregnancy which allegedly is the worst form of cruelty that could be inflicted upon him. He states that abortion is against the values of Islamic religion and a great sin under Shariat Law. He contends that respondent No.2 has ample evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons and sought to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were living together at the point of time when the petitioner discovered her pregnancy. He contends that respondent No.2 has ample evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons and sought to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were living together at the point of time when the petitioner discovered her pregnancy. As per the averments made in the affidavit, the pregnancy of the petitioner was only four (4) weeks as her last menstruation period was 27.02.2022 and she has opted for abortion on 07.04.2022 and the pregnancy was also a result of failure of contraception i.e., Copper-T, which was placed to avoid pregnancy. 8. It is also an admitted fact that the offence took place while petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were residing at Road No.12, Anand Banjara Colony, which comes under the jurisdiction of Banjara Hills Police Station. When both the couple resided under the same roof, at no stretch of imagination it can be presumed that respondent No.2 had no knowledge about pregnancy of his wife. 9. As per the charge sheet, it is stated that respondent No.2 came to know about the said abortion committed by his wife during May, 2023. But he filed a complaint before the Banjara Hills Police Station on 05.01.2024. If at all the complainant came to know about the abortion during May, 2023 he ought to have filed a complaint immediately but as per record, the complaint is filed on 05.01.2024 and it was registered on 10.07.2024 vide F.I.R.No.693 of 2024 i.e., after a lapse of seven (7) months of knowledge which shows that there is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint. 10. A perusal of F.I.R.No.130 of 2023 dated 30.12.2023 shows that the petitioner filed a complaint against her husband and in- laws alleging the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of I.P.C. The impugned F.I.R.No.693 of 2024 came to be registered on 10.07.2024 i.e., precisely after a lapse of seven (7) months thereafter. This shows that respondent No.2 did not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed material facts before this Court. 11. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the decision cited (supra 2) at para Nos.17, 19, 21 and 22 held as follows:- [17] This is the most unfortunate case where a husband has brought privileged acts and conducts of husband and wife in the court. 11. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the decision cited (supra 2) at para Nos.17, 19, 21 and 22 held as follows:- [17] This is the most unfortunate case where a husband has brought privileged acts and conducts of husband and wife in the court. The relation between the husband and wife became sour in the year 1999, when the wife started residing with her parents at Chandigarh. It is an admitted fact that on 09.11.2002, during proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the efforts of the Lok Adalat, Chandigarh, the wife agreed to accompany the husband and started residing with her, under one roof. Naturally, they have cohabited as husband and wife while residing together. Besides love and affection, physical intimacy is one of the key elements of a happy matrimonial life. In the present case, the wife knew her conjugal duties towards her husband. Consequently, if the wife has consented to matrimonial sex and created sexual relations with her own husband, it does not mean that she has consented to conceive a child. It is the free will of the wife to give birth to a child or not. The husband cannot compel her to conceive and give birth to his child. Mere consent to conjugal rights does not mean consent to give birth to a child for her husband. The wife did so in order to strength the matrimonial ties. On 02.01.2003, admittedly the husband and wife came to know that the wife was pregnant from her husband. She did not want to give birth to a child and showing unwillingness, got her pregnancy terminated in January, 2003, from the petitioners in Civil Revision No. 6337 of 2011 who are authorized to do so under the Act. [19]. ….The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (34 of 1971) no where provides for the express or implied consent of the husband. The wife is the best judge and is to see whether she wants to continue the pregnancy or to get it aborted . The husband has unsuccessfully brought an action for perpetual injunction restraining the wife to get the pregnancy terminated, but the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. The wife is the best judge and is to see whether she wants to continue the pregnancy or to get it aborted . The husband has unsuccessfully brought an action for perpetual injunction restraining the wife to get the pregnancy terminated, but the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. [20] When the husband has no right to compel her wife not to get the pregnancy terminated, he has no right to compel her wife not to get the pregnancy terminated, he has no right to sue her wife for compensation. The husband also has no cause of action against her wife on this account. Keeping in view the strained relations between the husband and wife, the decision of the wife to get the termination of unwanted foetus was right. It was not the act of termination of pregnancy, due to which relation became sour, but the relations between the husband and the wife were already strained. So, keeping in view the legal position, it is held that no express or implied consent of the husband is required for getting the pregnancy terminated under the Act. [22] It is a personal right of a woman to give birth to a child, but it is not the right of a husband to compel her wife to give birth to a child for the husband. No doubt the judicial precedents are there, where the courts have considered the termination of pregnancy by the wife as mental cruelty and gave divorce to the husband on this ground, keeping in view the unique facts and circumstances of the case. But, in the case in hand, the parties have a son born on 14.02.1995. The relations of the parties became strained and in the year 1999 the wife started living separately from her husband at Chandigarh. At the time of the second conception the age of the son was about eight years, who is with the mother/wife. No body can interfere in the personal decision of the wife to carry on or abort her pregnancy which may be due to the reason that an effort to live together under one roof has failed and that their son was of eight years. She approached the petitioners, who are admittedly an authorized hospital to have the pregnancy terminated. A woman is not a machine in which raw material is put and a finished product comes out. She approached the petitioners, who are admittedly an authorized hospital to have the pregnancy terminated. A woman is not a machine in which raw material is put and a finished product comes out. She should be mentally prepared to conceive, continue the same and give birth to a child. The unwanted pregnancy would naturally affect the mental health of the pregnant women. When the husband/plaintiff, came to know that his wife was pregnant from his loins, it was his duty to convince his wife to continue with the pregnancy, but his coming to the court by filing a Civil Suit for permanent injunction restraining the wife from getting the pregnancy terminated was a shameful act on his part. Because in the mean time, the wife was successful in getting the pregnancy terminated from a duly authorized medical practitioner, so he had to withdraw the Civil Suit, the same having become infructuous. He does not pause there, but came to the court bringing an action by filing a Civil Suit, for recovery of Rs.30 lacs towards damages on account of alleged pain, agony and harassment undergone by the plaintiff on account of termination of pregnancy. The act of the medical practitioners (herein the Revision petitioners) was perfectly legal. No offence or tortuous act was committed by the medical practitioners. So it is held that the act of the medical practitioners Dr. Mangla Dogra and Dr. Sukhbir Grewal, in Civil Revision No.6337 of 2011 was legal and justified. The plaintiff/ husband has failed to bring any document on record to show that the act of the medical practitioners was illegal or unjustified and thus they are liable to pay the damages. The act of the medical practitioners cannot be termed as unethical. 12. Para Nos.108 to 114 of the decision cited (supra 1) is extracted as hereunder:- 108. A woman can become pregnant by choice irrespective of her marital status. In case the pregnancy is wanted, it is equally shared by both the partners. However, in case of an unwanted or incidental pregnancy, the burden invariably falls on the pregnant woman affecting her mental and physical health . Article 21 of the Constitution recognizes and protects the right of a woman to undergo termination of pregnancy if her mental or physical health is at stake. However, in case of an unwanted or incidental pregnancy, the burden invariably falls on the pregnant woman affecting her mental and physical health . Article 21 of the Constitution recognizes and protects the right of a woman to undergo termination of pregnancy if her mental or physical health is at stake. Importantly, it is the woman alone who has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision-maker on the question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion. ii. The right to dignity 109. The right to dignity encapsulates the right of every individual to be treated as a self-governing entity having intrinsic value. It means that every human being possesses dignity merely by being a human, and can make self-defining and self-determining choices. Dignity has been recognized as a core component of the right to life and liberty under Article 21. 110. If women with unwanted pregnancies are forced to carry their pregnancies to term, the state would be stripping them of the right to determine the immediate and long-term path their lives would take. Depriving women of autonomy not only over their bodies but also over their lives would be an affront to their dignity. The right to choose for oneself - be it as significant as choosing the course of one's life or as mundane as one's day-to-day activities - forms a part of the right to dignity. It is this right which would be under attack if women were forced to continue with unwanted pregnancies. 111. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala , [ (1973) 4 SCC 225 ] , it was held that dignity forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Such is its fundamental value in our legal system -the concept of dignity forms the very foundation to the Constitution and the rights enshrined in it. Dignity inheres in every individual and is an inalienable aspect of one's humanity. 112. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 , a two-judge bench of this Court was dealing with the rights of detenus under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. This Court recognized that the right to dignity is an essential part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was observed:- "8. This Court recognized that the right to dignity is an essential part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was observed:- "8. ...We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings. Of course, the magnitude and content of the components of this right would depend upon the extent of the economic development of the country, but it must, in any view of the matter, include the right to the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on such functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the human-self. Every act which offends against or impairs human dignity would constitute deprivation pro tanto of this right to live and it would have to be in accordance with reasonable, fair and just procedure established by law which stands the test of other fundamental rights." 113. In Puttaswamy (supra) one of us (Dr.DY Chandrachud,J.) emphasized the interlinkage between privacy, dignity, and liberty as follows: "298. Privacy of the individual is an essential aspect of dignity. Dignity has both an intrinsic and instrumental value. As an intrinsic value, human dignity is an entitlement or a constitutionally protected interest in itself. In its instrumental facet, dignity and freedom are inseparably intertwined, each being a facilitative tool to achieve the other. The ability of the individual to protect a zone of privacy enables the realisation of the full value of life and liberty. Liberty has a broader meaning of which privacy is a subset. All liberties may not be exercised in privacy. Yet others can be fulfilled only within a private space. Privacy enables the individual to retain the autonomy of the body and mind. The autonomy of the individual is the ability to make decisions on vital matters of concern to life. Privacy has not been couched as an independent fundamental right. … The intersection between one's mental integrity and privacy entitles the individual to freedom of thought, the freedom to believe in what is right, and the freedom of self-determination. The autonomy of the individual is the ability to make decisions on vital matters of concern to life. Privacy has not been couched as an independent fundamental right. … The intersection between one's mental integrity and privacy entitles the individual to freedom of thought, the freedom to believe in what is right, and the freedom of self-determination. When these guarantees intersect with gender, they create a private space which protects all those elements which are crucial to gender identity. The family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are all integral to the dignity of the individual. Above all, the privacy of the individual recognises an inviolable right to determine how freedom shall be exercised.... Dignity cannot exist without privacy. Both reside within the inalienable values of life, liberty and freedom which the Constitution has recognised." 13. In Shivendra Pratab Singh Thakur alias Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 938] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where there is a huge delay caused in approaching the Police and registering the F.I.R. and when no reason whatsoever is assigned for such delay, then it would seem to be a tool to wreak vengeance against the accused and hence, a fit case warranting exercise of power conferred upon the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 14. Similarly, in Salib Alias Shalu Alias Salim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , [(2023) 20 Supreme Court Cases 194] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para No.26 held as follows:- “26. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged” 15. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel, on perusal of the material available on record and relying on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A. Vs. State of U.P. and Others , [2023 SCC On Line SC 946] and the afore cited decisions, upon taking into consideration the overall circumstances that lead to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation, this Court is of the view that multiple F.I.R.s registered over a period of time would evince wreaking out vengeance out of private or personal grudge between the parties. Moreover, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 16. Moreover, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 16. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in so far as petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are concerned in F.I.R.No.693 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 315 of I.P.C. and Section 175 (3) of B.N.S.S. are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.