Madras HC raps All-Women Police Station for mediating dowry case instead of filing FIR

The Madras High Court has come down heavily on an All-Women Police Station for allegedly pushing a dowry dispute towards a private settlement instead of registering a criminal case, warning that police cannot convert complaints of cognisable offences into monetary compromises.

Justice L Victoria Gowri observed that it was “paradoxical” that institutions created to protect women were failing to discharge their statutory duties with the required sensitivity and adherence to law. The court noted that some All-Women Police Stations were increasingly being perceived as informal forums for negotiated settlements, “overlooking the mandatory requirements of criminal law,” and stressed that such a degeneration into “informal adjudicatory mechanisms” operating outside the statutory framework could not be permitted.

“Police officers are neither arbitrators nor private mediators when allegations disclose commission of cognisable offences. Their foremost obligation remains faithful compliance with the mandate of criminal law,” the court said in its July 9 order, directing the officers concerned to deposit Rs 1 lakh each and appear before the court on July 14 with a detailed explanation.

The observations came in a case filed by a father who alleged that his daughter’s marriage, fixed for June 8, 2026, collapsed after the groom’s family demanded additional dowry and then unilaterally cancelled the wedding when he refused to meet the illegal demand. His counsel argued that instead of proceeding in accordance with law, the police facilitated a private settlement, persuading him to accept Rs 5 lakh as a partial refund of the dowry and asking him to wait another month for recovery, after which the case was closed.

The Government Advocate, however, contended that the complaint had been duly enquired into and that the parties had voluntarily reached an amicable settlement outside the police station. The court, unimpressed, said the matter warranted “serious judicial scrutiny” in view of the broader pattern it reflected in the functioning of some All-Women Police Stations.

Pointing to government circulars that had envisaged counselling units, mobile counselling services, awareness programmes and village outreach initiatives as part of these institutions, the court remarked that many of these mechanisms had “become virtually dormant”. Counselling units remained non-functional, mobile awareness programmes had “largely disappeared”, and the larger mission of social sensitisation appeared to have been sidelined, it noted.

The court said this gap between the optimism of progressive measures and the “disturbing realities” of practice not only lacked legal sanction but also trivialised serious allegations of dowry harassment. It reiterated that allegations of dowry-related offences could not be diluted through informal compromises and that the role of the police was to enforce the law, not to broker private settlements.