Madras HC ordered two women cops to pay Rs.1 lakh each for trying to settle a dowry dispute instead of lodging an FIR. It said officers are not arbitrators or mediators; when cognizable offences are alleged, their duty is to enforce law, not dilute it.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed two police officers of the All Women Police Station (AWPS) at Alangulam to each pay Rs.1,00,000 to a complainant, as accountability for having brokered a private settlement in a dowry complaint instead of registering a first information report (FIR) as the law required.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri passed the order on a petition moved by the father of a woman whose engagement had collapsed amid allegations of dowry demands, and who had sought a direction to the police to act on his complaint against his daughter’s former fiancé and the latter’s family.
According to the petitioner, his daughter’s marriage had been arranged with a senior engineer, and the engagement was solemnised on April 18. He alleged that Rs.10,00,000 was extracted as dowry on the day of the engagement itself, and that continuing demands led to the unilateral cancellation of the wedding, which had been fixed for June 8.
When he approached the police, the petitioner alleged, they engineered a private settlement rather than registering a case securing him a partial refund of Rs.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 of July 9, the Court had come down heavily on this course of conduct, holding that officers of the police cannot recast allegations of cognizable offences as private financial arrangements.
The Court held that ,
“Police officers are neither arbitrators nor private mediators when allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences,”
And observed that their obligation is to enforce the law, not to negotiate its dilution. Police officers, the Court had said, cannot arrogate to themselves a jurisdiction to convert allegations of cognizable offences into private monetary settlements.
That order had required the Inspector and Sub-Inspector concerned to appear and account for their conduct, and had directed each of them to deposit Rs.1 lakh as interim compensation.
By the time the matter returned before the Court, a series of remedial measures had followed. The two officers had been placed under suspension, an FIR had been registered against the persons named by the petitioner, and the matter had been referred to the District Dowry Prohibition Officer, Tenkasi, for enquiry.
Recording that the petitioner’s principal grievance had thereby been substantially redressed, the Court directed the respondents to extend full cooperation to the investigation, which was to be conducted without being influenced by any observation in its order.
Notwithstanding the corrective action, the Court held that the Rs.1 lakh to be paid by each officer would stand as the final measure of public law accountability for the dereliction of duty. In effect, the reversal of the officers’ conduct did not wipe out the consequence of it the compensation was retained not as interim security but as a settled liability for the failure to discharge a statutory obligation.
The Court permitted the Superintendent of Police to revoke the suspension of the two officers with effect from July 20.
The order rests on the settled principle, laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, that the registration of an FIR is mandatory under the law once information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, and that the officer in charge has no discretion to withhold registration in such a case.
The offences alleged here demands for dowry are cognizable, and the framework of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 leaves no room for the police to substitute a negotiated refund for the criminal process.
The direction to pay compensation for a failure of this kind draws on the Court’s public law jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, under which the High Court may award monetary compensation as a remedy for the violation of rights occasioned by the dereliction of a public duty here, the right of a complainant to have a cognizable offence investigated in accordance with law.
Case Title: P. Paul Abraham v. State of Tamil Nadu