Delhi High Court reprimands police for routine use of ‘haath mara’ in modesty FIRs: 'Gross misuse of law

Delhi High Court

• Delhi HC slams police for using generic phrases in FIRs on women's modesty.
• Court dismisses FIR post-settlement, advises police to note complainant's account only
• Police advised to ensure accuracy, avoid unendorsed claims in sensitive FIRs

Did our AI summary help?

The Delhi High Court has strongly criticised the police practice of routinely inserting a particular Hindi phrase in first information reports (FIRs) relating to cases of outraging a woman’s modesty, calling it a serious abuse of legal provisions and urging corrective steps at the police station level.

According to reports, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made these observations while dealing with a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR and related criminal proceedings against two men accused of assaulting a woman event manager while allegedly under the influence of alcohol.

The FIR had been registered for offences including assault, wrongful restraint, and outraging the modesty of a woman.

In an order passed on December 17, the court took exception to what it described as a mechanical and unverified practice followed by the police.

“It is unfortunate that in every FIR under IPC Section 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty), the word ‘haath mara’ is being written, which is not being endorsed by the complainant. It is a gross misuse of the law and requires introspection at the level of the police stations,” the court said.

Justice Krishna underlined that allegations recorded in FIRs must faithfully reflect the complainant’s version and not contain embellishments or standardised phrases added by investigating officers. The court directed the deputy commissioner of police concerned to ensure that no conjured or unendorsed allegations are inserted in complaints at the stage of registration.

The matter before the court arose from an incident in which the complainant alleged that the accused persons, allegedly intoxicated, had assaulted her and pressured her to dance with them.

Based on her complaint, the police registered an FIR under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including Section 74, which corresponds to Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealing with assault or use of criminal force to outrage a woman’s modesty.

During the proceedings, it was placed on record that the complainant and the accused had amicably resolved their dispute after intervention by mutual friends and well-wishers. A settlement dated December 3 stated that both sides had agreed not to initiate any further complaints or legal proceedings against each other and to live peacefully in the future.

The complainant was personally present in court and informed the judge that she had no objection to the FIR being quashed. Taking note of her statement, the court recorded that the settlement had been entered into “voluntarily” and “without any fear” or “coercion”.

In view of the compromise and the complainant’s consent, the court exercised its inherent powers to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the accused. At the same time, it reiterated the need for police accountability in accurately recording allegations, particularly in sensitive offences involving women.

While discussing the legal framework, the court noted that Section 354 of the IPC, and its corresponding provision under the BNS, prescribes punishment for assault or criminal force used against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty, with imprisonment ranging from one to five years, along with a fine.

The order also referred to judicial precedents on what may constitute outraging modesty. In a separate case, the Chhattisgarh High Court had held that holding a woman’s hand, pulling her towards oneself, and saying “I love you” amounted to outraging her modesty.

“In the instant case, the appellant not only held the hand of the victim, rather he also pulled her towards him by saying ‘I love you’. Such behaviour of a young boy with any girl, particularly of a rural area, is considered highly objectionable,” the Chhattisgarh High Court had observed.

The Delhi High Court’s ruling, however, was focused squarely on the process of recording complaints. By flagging the repeated use of unverified phrases in FIRs, the court stressed that safeguarding the integrity of criminal law requires precision, fairness, and strict adherence to the complainant’s own account, especially in cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct.