The High Court held that police officers cannot act as private arbitrators in cognizable offences, directing two suspended officers to pay ₹1 lakh each as public law compensation.
complaint was duly enquired into and that both parties had voluntarily arrived at an amicable settlement outside the police station. It was submitted that written statements evidencing the settlement had been furnished before the third respondent, justifying the closure of the complaint.
At a later stage, it was submitted that the State Government had taken serious note of the institutional deficiencies highlighted by the Court. He informed the Court that prompt corrective measures had been taken: disciplinary proceedings were initiated by placing respondents two and three under suspension, an FIR was duly registered against the private respondents, and the matter was referred to the District Dowry Prohibition Officer for enquiry.
Observations and Directions of the Court
Vide order dated July 9, 2026, the High Court expressed deep dissatisfaction over the conduct of the police officers, observing that police stations—particularly All Women Police Stations—cannot be permitted to degenerate into informal adjudicatory or arbitration centers. The Court held that police officers have no jurisdiction to convert allegations of cognizable offences into private monetary settlements, emphasizing that their duty is to enforce the law, not negotiate its dilution.
The Court highlighted that while state policy initiatives like the “Singapenn Special Task Force” demonstrated a strong commitment to gender justice, the failure of foundational institutions like All Women Police Stations to register complaints of dowry harassment eroded public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The Court directed the second respondent (Inspector of Police) to appear in person and furnish a detailed explanation regarding the non-registration of an FIR. Furthermore, the Court ordered respondents two and three to deposit a sum of public law compensation directly into the petitioner’s bank account for the injury caused by their dereliction of duty.
It observed, “If the allegations contained in the complaint are accepted at face value, they unmistakably disclose commission of cognizable offences warranting registration of a First Information Report and investigation in accordance with law. Instead, the police appear to have facilitated return of only a portion of the alleged dowry amount, persuaded the complainant to await repayment of the remaining amount and thereafter proceeded to close the complaint. Such an approach not only lacks legal sanction but also trivialises the gravity of allegations relating to dowry harassment. Police officers cannot assume unto themselves the jurisdiction to convert allegations of cognizable offences into private monetary settlements. The duty of the police is to enforce the law not to negotiate its dilution.”
Subsequently, on July 16, 2026, upon noting subsequent compliance developments—namely, the suspension of respondents two and three, the official registration of an FIR against the private respondents, and the transmission of the matter to the District Dowry Prohibition Officer—the Court observed that the petitioner’s primary grievance stood substantially redressed.
The Court directed respondents four to nine to appear before the District Dowry Prohibition Officer and fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The Investigating Officer and the Dowry Prohibition Officer were instructed to proceed strictly in accordance with law and file a final report before the jurisdictional court, uninfluenced by any observations made in the High Court’s orders.
Taking note of the unconditional remorse expressed by respondents two and three during their personal appearance, as well as the period of suspension already undergone by them, the Court took a lenient view regarding further departmental consequences.
It clarified that no further departmental proceedings would be initiated against them on the subject matter, provided they credited the directed public law compensation to the petitioner’s account within the stipulated time. The Court also granted liberty to the primary respondent to revoke the suspension of the police officers.
The Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
Cause Title: P. Paul Abraham v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3809 of 2026]