The Delhi High Court, while quashing an FIR in an assault case based on a settlement, has passed a significant direction to the Delhi Police regarding the recording of complaints. The Court observed a “gross misuse of the Law” where police officials reportedly insert specific phrases into First Information Reports (FIRs) that are not endorsed by the complainants.
The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was hearing a petition for the quashing of FIR No. 349/2025 registered at Police Station Timarpur. The FIR was lodged under Sections 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 126(2) (Wrongful restraint), 74 (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), and 3(5) (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR following a settlement between the parties. However, the Court took serious note of the language used in the FIRs, specifically directing the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to ensure that police officers do not insert “conjured averments” into complaints.
Background of the Dispute
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, who works as an Event Manager. According to the FIR, the incident occurred when the Petitioners, Tenzin Youten and another individual, allegedly in a drunken state, assaulted the complainant and demanded that she dance.
Following the registration of the FIR, the parties entered into a settlement on 03.12.2025. Consequently, the Petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (formerly Section 482 of the CrPC) to quash the proceedings.
Arguments and Settlement
During the hearing, the Petitioners appeared in person along with their counsel, Mr. Rajeev Kumar and Ms. Priya Singh. Respondent No. 2 (the complainant) was also present with her counsel, Mr. Jitendra Tomar.
The complainant stated that she had settled the matter with the Petitioners voluntarily and without any fear or coercion. She affirmed that she had no objection to the quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings. The State was represented by Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Criminal).
Court’s Observations and Analysis
While considering the petition, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made a critical observation regarding the terminology frequently found in FIRs involving offenses against women. The Court noted a pattern where specific Hindi phrases are added to complaints by the police, which may not have been stated by the victims themselves.
The Court observed:
“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.”
(Note: Section 354 of the IPC corresponds to Section 74 of the BNS, which deals with assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.)
Decision
In view of the settlement and the nature of the allegations, the High Court quashed FIR No. 349/2025 and all consequential proceedings.
However, moving beyond the immediate relief to the petitioners, the Court issued a strict direction to the police authorities to curb the practice of manipulating complaints.
The Court directed:
“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 petition was disposed of with these directions.
Case Details:
Case Title: TENZIN YOUTEN & ANR. v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 4174/2025
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Rajeev Kumar and Ms. Priya Singh
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for the State; Mr. Jitendra Tomar, Advocate for R2
