Latest JudgementIndian Penal Code, 1860Constitution of India

Ishita Bhardwaj v. State of Rajasthan, 2026

The judgment clarifies the Scope of Sections 312 and 313 IPC, emphasizing Intent and Physical Act as essential elements.

Rajasthan High Court·5 May 2026

Court

Rajasthan High Court

Date of Decision

5 May 2026

Judges

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 312 IPC Section 313 IPC Section 498A IPC Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Facts of the Case

The case involved a brother and sister accused in separate allegations arising from the same factual background.
The brother was accused of Rape based on a Live-in Relationship, allegedly under a false promise of marriage.
The complainant initially filed an FIR but later withdrew the complaint.
Subsequently, a Second FIR with Identical Allegations was filed against the brother.
The sister (petitioner) was accused under Section 312 IPC for allegedly sending Abortion Pills to the complainant.
Importantly, this allegation was not made by the complainant, but introduced by the petitioner’s husband as a Counterblast to a case under Section 498A IPC filed by her.
There was No Evidence showing that the pills were administered or forced upon the complainant.

Whether mere sending of Abortion Pills constitutes an offence under Sections 312 and 313 IPC?
Whether the essential ingredients of Causing Miscarriage were satisfied in absence of Forceful Administration or Intent?
Whether filing a Second FIR with Identical Allegations amounts to Abuse of Process of Law?
Whether allegations introduced by a third party (not the complainant) can sustain criminal prosecution?

The Court held that essential ingredients of Sections 312 and 313 IPC were not satisfied.
It emphasized that:
- Mere Sending of Abortion Pills does not amount to an offence.
- There must be Intent and Forceful Administration to cause miscarriage.
The Court noted the Complete Absence of Evidence showing that the pills were forced upon the complainant.
It highlighted that the allegation was Not Made by the Complainant, but by the husband of the petitioner, indicating Malicious Intent.
Regarding the brother, the Court held that filing a Second FIR with Identical Allegations is:
- Legally Impermissible
- An Abuse of Process of Law
- A violation of Article 21
The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents to reiterate that Successive FIRs on the same cause of action are not maintainable.
It concluded that continuation of proceedings would amount to Misuse of Criminal Law.
Accordingly, the Court Quashed the FIR against the petitioners.

FIR quashed as abuse of process of law.
Mere sending of abortion pills does not constitute offence under Sections 312/313 IPC.
Successive FIR on identical facts is not maintainable.

The judgment clarifies the Scope of Sections 312 and 313 IPC, emphasizing Intent and Physical Act as essential elements.
It reinforces that Criminal Liability cannot arise from mere suspicion or indirect acts like sending pills.
The ruling highlights the importance of Primary Evidence and Direct Allegations by the Victim.
It strengthens safeguards against Misuse of Criminal Proceedings, especially in personal disputes.
The Court’s reliance on Article 21 underscores protection against Harassment through Repeated FIRs.
The judgment contributes to jurisprudence on Abuse of Legal Process and Procedural Fairness.