The Delhi High Court has strongly criticised police for routinely inserting the words “haath mara” in women’s assault FIRs without complainant approval. The Court called it a gross misuse of law and ordered police accountability to stop fabricated allegations.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has made strong and uncomfortable observations against routine police practices while dealing with FIRs filed in cases of assault and outraging the modesty of women. The Court termed it “unfortunate” that almost every FIR under Section 354 contains the expression “haath mara”, even when such words are not endorsed or stated by the complainant herself.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that this pattern reflects a serious problem within the policing system and amounts to misuse of criminal law. The Court clearly stated that such conduct requires urgent self-examination at the level of police stations across Delhi.
“It is unfortunate that in every FIR under Section 354, typically the words “haath mara” is being written, which is not being endorsed by the Complainant. It is gross misuse of the Law and requires introspection at the level of the Police Stations”
-the Court said.
These observations came while the High Court was hearing a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 74 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The case was filed against two men based on allegations made by a woman who worked as an event manager. She had alleged that the accused, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, assaulted her and pressured her to dance with them.
During the course of proceedings, it was brought to the Court’s notice that the parties had amicably settled the dispute with the help of common friends and well-wishers. As per the settlement, both sides agreed to live peacefully in the future and not initiate any further complaints or legal proceedings against each other. The complainant also appeared before the Court and stated that she had no objection to the FIR being quashed.
The Court examined the settlement and recorded that it was entered into voluntarily, without fear, pressure or coercion. It also noted that both sides undertook to remain bound by the terms of the settlement agreement. Taking into account the nature of the allegations and the fact that the dispute had been fully resolved, the Court allowed the petition.
“Considering the nature of the allegations and that they have settled the matter, the FIR No. 349/2025 under Section 115(2)/126(2)/74/3(5) of BNS, registered at Police Station Timarpur, Central District, Delhi and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed”
-the Court said.
Importantly, the High Court went a step further and issued a clear administrative direction to prevent repetition of such practices in the future. The Court directed that a copy of its order be sent to senior police officials to ensure accountability at the ground level.
“Copy of this Order be sent to DCP to ensure that no conjured averments not stated by the Complainant, are inserted on the Complaint.”
The Court’s remarks underline the need for police to record complaints truthfully, accurately, and without embellishment, ensuring that criminal law is not used as a tool of convenience or pressure.
Explanatory Table – Laws & Sections Involved In The Case
| Law / Statute | Section | What the Section Deals With (Simple Explanation) | How It Was Used in This Case |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) | Section 115(2) | Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt under specified circumstances | Allegation of physical assault against the accused |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) | Section 126(2) | Criminal force used with intent to outrage modesty | Used to invoke allegations of inappropriate physical conduct |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) | Section 74 | Acts done with common intention | Applied to link both accused together for the alleged act |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) | Section 3(5) | Joint liability for acts done in furtherance of common intention | Used to make both accused equally liable |
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) | Section 528 | Inherent powers of High Court to prevent abuse of process (old Section 482 CrPC) | Invoked for quashing of FIR after settlement |
| Constitution of India | Article 226 | Power of High Courts to issue writs | Used to seek quashing of FIR and proceedings |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Tenzin Youten & ANR v. The State Of NCT Of Delhi And ANR
- Court: Delhi High Court
- Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
- Date of Order: 17 December 2025
- Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 4174/2025
- FIR Details: FIR No. 349/2025.
- Police Station: Timarpur, Central District, Delhi
- Sections: 115(2)/126(2)/74/3(5) of BNS
- Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Rajeev Kumar & Ms. Priya Singh
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the State & Mr. Jitendra Tomar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
Key Takeaways
- This order confirms what accused men have been saying for years—police often add stock phrases like “haath mara” in women-centric FIRs without verifying whether the complainant actually said it.
- Mechanical FIR drafting converts minor disputes into serious criminal cases, exposing men to arrest, social stigma, and prolonged trials without factual foundation.
- The Court’s use of the words “gross misuse of the Law” is a rare judicial acknowledgment that investigative shortcuts can destroy innocent lives.
- Direction to the DCP shows that accountability must lie with police officers who fabricate or exaggerate allegations under pressure or convenience.
- This judgment strengthens the legal argument that false or embellished allegations are not women’s rights but systemic abuse of criminal law.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.