New Delhi, June 3 (IANS) Observing that delays in registering FIRs can undermine investigations into the unnatural deaths of young married women, the Delhi High Court has urged courts to accord greater urgency to such matters, particularly where allegations of dowry-related harassment are raised and police fail to register a case.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while rejecting anticipatory bail pleas filed by a husband and his parents in a case relating to the death of a woman within seven months of her marriage, where an FIR was registered only after judicial intervention more than eight months after her death.
The Delhi High Court said applications seeking directions for registration of FIRs in cases concerning the unnatural death of a young woman within a short period of marriage should be listed on shorter dates and taken up expeditiously so that commencement of investigation is not delayed.
“This Court hopes that, in future, applications seeking directions for registration of FIR, concerning the unnatural death of a young woman within a short period of marriage, particularly where allegations of dowry-related harassment are raised and the police fail to register an FIR, shall be taken up with greater urgency by the Courts and be listed on shorter dates so that the issue of registration of FIR and commencement of investigation is not left unresolved for months together,” Justice Sharma said.
The order noted that the deceased, Heena alias Anu, had married the accused, Sandeep alias Sunny, on December 11, 2024, and died on July 3, 2025, under allegedly unnatural circumstances.
Though her parents had raised suspicion against her husband and in-laws before the Executive Magistrate immediately after her death, no FIR was registered at the time.
Subsequently, the woman’s father lodged a detailed complaint within weeks, alleging dowry demands, physical and mental cruelty, harassment for additional money and articles, and pressure exerted upon his daughter by her husband and in-laws.
However, despite the complaint, the matter remained at the inquiry stage for several months and an FIR came to be registered only on March 13, 2026, pursuant to directions issued by a Magistrate.
The Delhi High Court remarked that the delay in registration of the FIR was particularly troubling as the deceased had been married for less than seven months, while registration of the criminal case took more than eight months.
“The registration of the FIR in relation to the unnatural death of a young woman took more time than the entire duration of her marriage itself,” Justice Sharma observed. It cautioned that delays in such cases could result in loss of evidence, fading of witnesses’ memories and erosion of material necessary to uncover the truth.
“Every passing day carries the possibility of loss or disappearance of evidence, fading of witnesses’ memory and erosion of other evidentiary material that may assist in discovering the truth,” the judgment said.
The Delhi High Court also rejected the argument that the allegations made by the deceased’s family were an afterthought because detailed accusations were not narrated in their initial statements before the Executive Magistrate.
Justice Sharma said the law cannot expect bereaved parents to provide a complete account of every allegation immediately after suffering the loss of a daughter.
“The law cannot demand from a bereaved parent, in the immediate aftermath of such a tragedy, the composure of a trained investigator or the recollection of a meticulously prepared complainant,” the judge observed.
The Delhi High Court observed that the deceased’s parents had expressed suspicion against the matrimonial family on the day of her death itself and had sought justice.
It added that once such concerns were brought to the notice of authorities, the responsibility shifted to the investigating agency to conduct a meaningful probe.
Justice Sharma further expressed concern that despite directions by the Executive Magistrate to inquire into the matter and despite a subsequent detailed complaint by the father, criminal law was not set into motion until the complainant approached the court.
“The unfortunate reality, however, is that the father of the deceased was made to run from pillar to post only to ensure that an FIR is registered and investigation is conducted regarding the unnatural death of his young daughter,” the judgment said.
While refusing anticipatory bail to Sandeep alias Sunny, father-in-law Puran Chand and mother-in-law Satwati, the Delhi High Court held that the allegations of dowry demands, cruelty and harassment were serious and specific in nature and warranted a thorough investigation.
It observed that the investigation was still at a nascent stage and custodial interrogation of the accused could not be ruled out.
Dismissing all three anticipatory bail applications, the Delhi High Court clarified that its observations would not influence the merits of the trial.
–IANS
pds/pgh
