Sending Abortion Pills Through Courier does not Constitute Offence

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Why in News? 

A Single Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, comprising Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, in Ishita Bhardwaj v. State of Rajasthan (2026), quashed an FIR registered against a woman under Sections 312 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (Sections 88 & 89 of BNS).  

• The Court held that merely sending abortion pills through courier does not fulfil the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 312 IPC unless such pills are forcefully given to the victim with an intention to cause miscarriage.  
• The Court further held that a subsequent FIR filed with verbatim identical allegations, after the complainant had already withdrawn the earlier complaint, amounted to an abuse of the process of law and was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

What was the Background of Ishita Bhardwaj v. State of Rajasthan (2026) Case? 

• The present petition was filed by a brother and sister seeking quashing of an FIR. The brother was implicated for rape, while the sister was accused under Section 312 IPC for allegedly sending abortion pills to the complainant through courier. 
• The complainant and the brother had been in a live-in relationship. It was alleged that on the pretext of marriage, the brother had developed a consensual sexual relationship with the complainant on multiple occasions between 2018 and 2019. An FIR was accordingly lodged against him. During the trial, however, the complainant withdrew the proceedings. Subsequently, a second FIR was filed against the brother containing verbatim identical allegations. 
• As regards the sister, no allegation had been made against her in the complainant's own complaint. The allegation of sending abortion pills was introduced by the sister's husband — against whom she had filed a case for cruelty under Section 498A IPC — apparently as a counter-blast to her complaint.

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the Ingredients of Section 312 IPC: The Court held that the basic ingredients of the offence under Sections 312 and 313 IPC require that a person voluntarily cause a woman with child to miscarry, and that such miscarriage should not have been caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the woman's life. Merely sending abortion pills through courier to any person does not satisfy these ingredients unless the pills are forcefully administered to the victim with the intent to cause miscarriage. 

On Absence of Evidence Against the Petitioner: The Court observed that not a single allegation in the FIR stated that the petitioner had caused miscarriage of the complainant. Even taking the allegations at face value, no primary evidence existed on record to establish forceful administration of the pills or any intent to cause miscarriage. Accordingly, the essential ingredients of Sections 312 and 313 IPC were found to be missing. 

On the Source of the Allegation: The Court noted that the allegation against the sister did not originate from the complainant but was introduced by the sister's husband, evidently as a counter-blast to the Section 498A IPC case filed against him. The Court treated this circumstance as a relevant indicator of the malafide character of the FIR. 

On the Subsequent FIR Against the Brother: The Court referred to multiple Supreme Court decisions holding that registration of a subsequent FIR or complaint regarding identical allegations, after the earlier complaint has been withdrawn, constitutes an abuse of the process of law that is impermissible and violative of Article 21. The Court observed that the allegations in both FIRs were verbatim identical, with no difference even in punctuation. Once the earlier criminal complaint regarding the same incident and the same offence was not pressed and was withdrawn by the victim, a successive FIR on the same facts was held to be legally unsustainable. 

On the FIR Being an Abuse of Process: The Court held that the FIR against the sister was a gross abuse of law, as it lacked any credible allegation and had been introduced through an interested party. The FIR was accordingly quashed. 

What are Sections 88 & 89 of BNS? 

• Section 88: Causing Miscarriage: 
  • This section states that whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, shall, if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if the woman be quick with child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 
  • It is further given in the explanation that a woman who causes herself to miscarry, is within the meaning of this section. 
• Section 89: Causing miscarriage without woman's consent: 
  • This Section states that whoever commits the offence under section 88 without the consent of the woman, whether the woman is quick with child or not, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.