Madras HC orders two women cops to pay ₹1 lakh each for trying to settle dowry dispute instead of lodging FIR

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed two police officers of the All Women Police Station (AWPS) at Alangulam to pay ₹1,00,000 each to a complainant as compensation for failing to register a first information report (FIR) in a dowry demand case.

The Court of Justice L Victoria Gowri was hearing a petition by the father of a woman whose engagement collapsed after alleged dowry demands.

He sought a direction to the police to act on his complaint against his daughter's former fiancé and his family.

According to the petitioner, his daughter's marriage was arranged with a Senior Engineer employed at Quest Global Private Limited and the engagement was solemnised on April 18.

He alleged that ₹10,00,000 was extracted as dowry on the day of the engagement itself, and that further demands led to unilateral cancellation of the wedding, which had been scheduled for June 8.

When he approached the police the petitioner claimed the police brokered a private settlement instead of registering a case securing him a partial refund of ₹5,00,000, asking him to wait a month for the balance, and then closing the complaint without any penal action.

In an earlier order passed on July 9, the Court had strongly criticised this approach, holding that police officers "are neither arbitrators nor private mediators when allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences," and that their duty is to enforce the law not to negotiate its dilution.

Police officers cannot assume the jurisdiction to convert allegations of cognizable offences into private monetary settlements, the Court had said then.

That order had directed the Inspector and Sub-Inspector concerned to appear and explain their conduct, and directed them to deposit ₹1 lakh each as interim compensation.

By the time of the present order, several corrective steps had been taken, the two officers were placed under suspension, an FIR was registered against the respondents named by the petitioner, and the matter was referred to the District Dowry Prohibition Officer of Tenkasi for enquiry.

The Court held that the petitioner's primary grievance stood substantially redressed and directed the respondents to cooperate fully with the investigation, to be conducted uninfluenced by observations in its order.

However, it held that the ₹1 lakh compensation to be paid by each officer would stand as final public law accountability for the dereliction.

The Superintendent of Police was permitted to revoke the suspension of the two officers from July 20.

Advocate Vanisha appeared for the petitioner.

Government Advocate (Criminal) D Rajaboopathy appeared for respondents.

[Read Judgement]