The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ordered two police officers from the All Women Police Station (AWPS) in Alangulam to pay ₹1,00,000 each as compensation to a complainant. This decision came after the officers failed to file a First Information Report (FIR) concerning allegations of dowry demands. The judgement was delivered by Justice L Victoria Gowri, who addressed the petition filed by a father seeking legal action against his daughter’s former fiancé and his family following the collapse of her engagement due to dowry demands.
Background of the Case
The petitioner’s daughter was engaged to a Senior Engineer working at Quest Global Private Limited, with the engagement taking place on April 18. The petitioner claimed that on the day of the engagement, ₹10,00,000 was demanded as dowry. Subsequent demands allegedly led to the cancellation of the wedding, which was planned for June 8. The father reported that instead of registering a criminal case, the police facilitated a private settlement, partially refunding ₹5,00,000 and closing the complaint without further action.
Judicial Remarks
In an order dated July 9, Justice Gowri criticized this approach, emphasizing that police officers are not mediators in cases involving cognizable offenses. Their responsibility is to enforce the law rather than negotiate settlements. The court stated, “Police officers cannot assume the jurisdiction to convert allegations of cognizable offences into private monetary settlements.” Consequently, the court directed the concerned Inspector and Sub-Inspector to appear in court and deposit ₹1 lakh each as interim compensation.
Subsequent Developments
Following the court’s initial order, corrective measures were implemented. The two officers were suspended, an FIR was filed against the accused parties, and the case was referred to the District Dowry Prohibition Officer of Tenkasi for further investigation. The court acknowledged that the primary grievances of the petitioner had been addressed. It insisted that the investigation proceed without being influenced by the court’s observations.
While allowing the Superintendent of Police to lift the suspension of the officers from July 20, the court maintained the ₹1 lakh compensation as a final measure of accountability for the officers’ dereliction of duty. Advocate Vanisha represented the petitioner, while Government Advocate (Criminal) D Rajaboopathy appeared for the respondents.
