A room with counsellors and an ACP, not an institution with powers. What it can lawfully do, what it cannot, whether the letter you received obliges you to go, and what the law actually requires — set out for the person complaining and the person complained about.
A Crime Against Women Cell is not created by any statute. It is an administrative unit of the Delhi Police, set up by internal order. That single fact answers most of what people come here to ask, because a body with no statutory existence has no statutory powers of its own — it has only what a police officer has, and before an FIR almost none of those powers are engaged.
The Delhi High Court settled the position in three orders in a single week of August 2007, and no court has said otherwise since. A CAW Cell:
And for the woman making the complaint, the sentence nobody says: you were never required to come here. No law makes CAW Cell conciliation a step you must take before an FIR.
The first cell was set up in Delhi in 1983 as a single anti-dowry unit at police headquarters, headed part-time by a Deputy Commissioner. In 1986 separate cells were set up on the same lines in each of the then nine districts. Today they sit under the Special Police Unit for Women and Children, headquartered at Nanakpura, Moti Bagh, and each district cell is headed by an officer of Assistant Commissioner rank.
Their purpose is conciliation. As the Delhi High Court put it in 2002, the cell is "meant to safeguard the marriage and not to ruin it by registering case immediately". When a petition asked the High Court to abolish them in 2006, the Court declined, describing them as constituted with a social purpose so that crimes relating to women are dealt with sensitively.
The consequence is not academic. A CAW Cell has no powers of its own. Everything it can lawfully do, it does as ordinary police — and before an FIR is registered, an ordinary police officer's statutory powers are almost entirely dormant.
| Can a CAW Cell… | Answer | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Register an FIR itself? | No | FIRs are registered by the police station having jurisdiction |
| Investigate, before an FIR? | No | Delhi High Court: it "has no power to investigate the crime… Investigation in any crime can be done only after registration of FIR" |
| Arrest anyone? | No | Arrest presupposes a registered cognizable offence |
| Compel a person to attend? | No | It has "no authority to secure the presence of any person either by coercion or by threat" |
| Issue a summons? | No | Its proceedings are "not judicial or quasi-judicial nor proceedings in the investigation of the crime. They are only reconciliatory proceedings" |
| Proceed if one side refuses? | No | It can act "only where both the parties are ready and willing to join the proceedings voluntarily" |
| Seize documents? | No lawful power before an FIR | Seizure powers attach to an investigation, which cannot exist pre-FIR |
| Direct money, jewellery or a passport to be deposited? | No | We could find no source conferring any such power on it |
| Grant divorce, custody, maintenance or a protection order? | No | It is not a court |
| Decide anything finally? | No | Same |
Three orders of the Delhi High Court, all within one week of August 2007, settled the position. They are the governing statement of what a CAW Cell may do, and nothing since has displaced them.
| Case number | Date | What it held |
|---|---|---|
| W.P.(Crl.) No. 849/2007 | 7 August 2007 | No coercive action may be taken to compel an unwilling person to appear. The proceedings are purely reconciliatory, and require both parties to join voluntarily |
| W.P.(Crl.) No. 1032/2007 with Crl.M.A. No. 8989/2007 | 10 August 2007 | The Cell has no authority to secure the presence of any person either by coercion or by threat, and must send request letters rather than summons |
| Crl.M. No. 9052/2007 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1045/2007 | 13 August 2007 | The Cell has no power to investigate; investigation can only follow registration of an FIR |
A related decision of 2008 is also worth knowing, because it governs what happens after the CAW Cell stage. In a bail matter the Delhi High Court issued guidelines directing that an FIR for cruelty or the stridhan offence should not be registered in a routine manner and should have the prior approval of a Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner; that arrest of the main accused should follow investigation and senior approval; and that legal services, commission and social-worker desks be set up inside crime against women cells. Delhi Police issued a standing order in the same year to similar effect.
This is the single most consequential confusion in this area, and at least one widely-read page states flatly that the enquiry officer "issues a summons" which is "a legal document which must be obeyed". That is wrong, and it is the kind of wrong that frightens people into decisions they did not have to make.
What a CAW Cell sends is a letter requesting voluntary attendance. It is not a summons under any provision of the criminal procedure code, and it is not an order requiring attendance of a witness — that power belongs only to a police officer making an investigation, and there is no investigation before an FIR.
| What is true | |
|---|---|
| Legal penalty for not attending | None. No warrant, no contempt, no offence. The Cell cannot compel attendance and cannot proceed without both sides willing |
| Practical consequence | Real. The Cell may record that conciliation has failed and forward the matter for registration of an FIR |
Both halves are true, and pages usually give you only one. The decision whether to attend is therefore strategic, not legal — and it is the sort of decision to take with an advocate who has read the notice, not from any web page including this one.
If you are the person who has complained, this is the most useful paragraph on the page.
There is no legal requirement to go to a CAW Cell before an FIR. No statute, no rule, no standing order and no judgment makes its conciliation a precondition. It is an administrative convenience. You are entitled to ask the police station to register an FIR, and there is a statutory ladder if it does not.
| Step | BNSS | Old CrPC | What it gives you |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 173(1) | 154(1) | Information about a cognizable offence, orally or by electronic communication, to the station house officer — to be reduced to writing, read over and signed |
| 2 | 173(2) | 154(2) | A copy of that information free of cost and forthwith to the informant or victim |
| 3 | 173(4) | 154(3) | If registration is refused — send the substance in writing and by post to the Deputy Commissioner, who must investigate or direct investigation |
| 4 | 175(3) | 156(3) | Failing that, apply to the Magistrate to order an investigation |
Two changes since 1 July 2024 work against a complainant in a hurry, and no page we found mentions either.
The second change is a new pre-FIR enquiry. The Sanhita now permits the officer in charge, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent, to conduct a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days to see whether a prima facie case exists — for cognizable offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven. The Supreme Court in March 2025 described this as a significant departure from the earlier position, because it permits an enquiry even where the information discloses a cognizable offence.
Which code applies is decided by the date of the alleged conduct, not the date of the complaint. Conduct before 1 July 2024 continues under the old code. That is why Delhi High Court orders in late 2025 were still quashing FIRs registered under IPC 498A — readers who see the old number in a recent court order are not seeing a mistake.
| Subject | Before 1 July 2024 | On or after |
|---|---|---|
| Cruelty by a husband or his relative | IPC 498A | BNS 85 |
| Definition of "cruelty" | Explanation to IPC 498A | BNS 86 |
| Dowry death | IPC 304B | BNS 80 |
| Stridhan — criminal breach of trust | IPC 406 | BNS 316(2) |
| Restriction on taking cognizance | CrPC 198A | BNSS 220 |
| FIR in a cognizable case | CrPC 154 | BNSS 173 |
| Magistrate-ordered investigation | CrPC 156(3) | BNSS 175(3) |
| Notice of appearance instead of arrest | CrPC 41A | BNSS 35(3) |
| Attendance of witnesses | CrPC 160 | BNSS 179 |
| Maintenance | CrPC 125 | BNSS 144 |
| Compounding | CrPC 320 | BNSS 359 |
| Anticipatory bail | CrPC 438 | BNSS 482 |
| Quashing by the High Court | CrPC 482 | BNSS 528 |
The offence itself carries up to three years and a fine, and is non-bailable, not compoundable, and triable by a Magistrate of the first class.
Two features of this offence are omitted almost everywhere, and both narrow it considerably.
It is cognizable only conditionally. The classification makes it cognizable where the information is given to the officer in charge of a police station by the woman aggrieved, or by a person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption, or where there is no such relative, by a notified public servant. A stranger, a neighbour or an organisation cannot set it in motion.
And a court cannot take cognizance freely either. The Sanhita provides that no court shall take cognizance of this offence except on a police report, or on a complaint by the aggrieved woman, her father, mother, brother or sister, her father's or mother's brother or sister, or — with the leave of the court — any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption.
Complaints reach a CAW Cell in several ways: in person at the district cell; by email to the special unit, which publishes a fresh-complaint address on its own site; through the helplines; by referral from a police station; or on a reference from one of the women's commissions.
What is officially documented about the process itself is thin. Delhi Police's own standing order requires "well trained and well behaved staff" with "abilities of perseverance, persuasion, patience and forbearance", particularly women officers, to be posted to these cells. The 2008 High Court guidelines directed that legal services, commission and social-worker desks be set up inside them, and that social workers attempt conciliation at the initial stage before police involvement.
If the parties reconcile, whatever is written down has no independent legal force — see the section on settlement below. If they do not, the matter is forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction for registration of an FIR. The CAW Cell does not register it itself.
| Question | The position |
|---|---|
| Am I legally obliged to attend? | No. The Cell cannot secure anyone's presence by coercion or threat and can act only with both sides willing |
| Is there any penalty for not attending? | No legal penalty. A practical consequence only — the matter may be forwarded for an FIR |
| Can I take an advocate with me? | We could not verify a right either way. No judgment, statute or standing order was found conferring or denying it. What is clear is that attendance is voluntary in the first place, so a person may make attendance conditional on being accompanied. Practice varies |
| Can I be arrested there? | Not lawfully before an FIR. No FIR, no investigation, no arrest power |
| Should I file a written reply? | No prescribed procedure exists that we could find. Whether to put anything in writing at this stage is a tactical question for an advocate — what you write may be produced later |
| Can my passport be taken or my travel stopped? | No. No such power exists at this stage. Impounding a passport is governed by its own Act and requires the statutory authority, not a police cell |
| Can I be told to deposit money? | No lawful power to order it was found |
This is the most heavily litigated practical question at this stage, and the honest answer is mixed.
The foundational rule, from a Constitution Bench in 1980, is that anticipatory bail turns on a reason to believe that one may be arrested on an accusation of a non-bailable offence, and that registration of an FIR is not a condition precedent. That much is settled and the provision is now Section 482 of the Sanhita's procedure code.
This page explains the law in general terms. It cannot tell you what to do about your own facts — only an advocate who has read your papers can do that. You can look through the advocates associated with Legal Space Services who practise in family and matrimonial matters, see their enrolment details and areas of practice, and send a consultation request. Searching and sending a request are free.
The protections you actually have under the new procedure code are real, and they are worth knowing before you walk in.
| What you have | Provision | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Information may be given orally or electronically | BNSS 173(1) | An electronic complaint goes on record once signed within three days |
| A copy of the FIR free of cost, forthwith | BNSS 173(2) | Ask for it at the counter and keep the number |
| You cannot be required to attend a police station | BNSS 179, first proviso | A woman may require to be seen where she resides. The same protection covers boys under fifteen, people over sixty, and people who are disabled or acutely ill. You may attend voluntarily if you prefer |
| Progress of the investigation within ninety days | BNSS 193(3)(ii) | By any means including electronic communication. Entirely new, and almost never invoked |
| Protection against night arrest, if you are yourself named | BNSS 43(5) | No arrest of a woman between sunset and sunrise save in exceptional circumstances, then only by a woman officer with the Magistrate's prior permission — this matters for a sister-in-law or mother-in-law named in a cross-complaint |
| Free legal aid, with no income limit | Legal Services Authorities Act | The Delhi State Legal Services Authority states expressly that women of any income group are eligible. The three-lakh ceiling applies to the general category, not to you |
On documents: there is no official published list of what to bring. What practitioners consistently describe is a dated written complaint in duplicate, with one copy stamped as a receipt; full names, addresses and phone numbers of everyone named; and an itemised list of stridhan — jewellery, cash, clothes and valuables. We are giving that as practice, not as a requirement.
We would rather tell you that in advance than have you discover it at the counter. What you do have is set out in the table above, and the ninety-day progress duty in particular is a right worth using.
The law on arrest in these cases has moved, decisively, and almost no page has caught up.
The starting point remains the Supreme Court's 2014 directions: no automatic arrest; the police must apply the statutory necessity parameters through a checklist; the checklist with reasons goes to the Magistrate, who must consider it before authorising detention; a written decision not to arrest must be forwarded within two weeks; and a notice of appearance must be served within two weeks. Those directions were expressly preserved when the Supreme Court revisited this area in 2018.
In January 2026 the Supreme Court restated the position under the new code. For offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years — and this offence, at three years, is well inside that band — the Court held:
People arrive at a CAW Cell having read that there is a two-month period during which nobody can be arrested. The position is more complicated than that, and it is genuinely unsettled.
| When | What happened |
|---|---|
| 2017 | The Supreme Court directed that Family Welfare Committees be constituted by legal services authorities in every district, that every cruelty complaint be referred to one, and that there be no arrest until the committee reported |
| 2018 | A three-judge bench held that the directions on Family Welfare Committees and the powers given to them were impermissible — beyond the Code. What survived was the existing line on arrest, on mandatory FIR registration, and the direction that settlements go to the High Court |
| July 2025 | A two-judge bench endorsed a High Court scheme reviving Family Welfare Committees together with a two-month "cooling period" during which there is to be no arrest — without referring to the 2018 three-judge decision |
A settlement written at a CAW Cell has no independent legal force. One published page states that agreed terms recorded there are "legally significant and enforceable". That is wrong as a statement of criminal law, and it is worth correcting because people rely on it.
The reason is simple. Cruelty by a husband or his relatives is not compoundable — it appears in neither table of the compounding provision, and that provision says in terms that no offence shall be compounded except as it provides. The parties cannot lawfully end the case by agreement. A CAW Cell settlement is material for a later quashing petition and evidence of a compromise. It is not a disposal, and it does not bind a court.
The route for the rest is a quashing petition under the High Court's inherent power. The Supreme Court directed in 2018 that settlements in these matters be taken to the High Court, and a consistent line of decisions from 2012 onwards governs when it will be granted — broadly, where the dispute is predominantly private, the settlement is genuine and voluntary, and continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose.
Delhi High Court grants these regularly. From recent decisions, the conditions the court actually imposes are worth knowing in advance:
Our page on quashing an FIR under Section 528 BNSS sets out how that petition is actually run.
A criminal matrimonial case can be mediated, and the Supreme Court has said it should be. In a 2013 decision the Court directed that criminal courts dealing with such complaints should, at any stage and particularly before taking up the complaint for hearing, refer the parties to a mediation centre where elements of settlement exist and both parties are willing. It repeated the point in August 2026, subject to the exclusion of matters involving death or serious violence.
Delhi's infrastructure for this is substantial: the High Court's own mediation and conciliation centre, mediation centres at the district courts, and a legal services counselling centre for pre-litigation mediation of matrimonial disputes.
| Forum | What it is | Can it get an FIR registered? |
|---|---|---|
| Police station | The station house officer | Yes — this is the only body that registers FIRs |
| Deputy Commissioner | On written refusal by the station | Yes — may investigate or direct investigation |
| Magistrate | On an affidavit-supported application, after hearing the police | Yes |
| CAW Cell | Conciliation unit of the Delhi Police | No — forwards to the police station |
| 112 / 1091 | Emergency and women's helplines | Indirectly — routes the matter to police |
| Delhi Commission for Women | Statutory body under a 1994 Delhi Act — receives complaints, counsels, provides legal assistance, takes matters up with police | No. We could find nothing establishing any directive power over the police, and we are not going to claim it has one |
| National Commission for Women | Statutory body under a 1990 Act, with an online complaint portal | No — it says so itself. It expedites and monitors, forms inquiry committees in serious cases, and refers on |
This is the part that gets buried, and it is often the fastest practical relief available.
Neither the domestic violence remedy nor maintenance depends on an FIR, or on the CAW Cell. They run independently and they can be started at any time.
A woman who is being told to wait for the CAW Cell process to run its course before doing anything else is being given poor advice. These proceedings do not wait for it.
The special unit publishes a directory of district cells on its own site. The addresses and landlines below are taken from it.
| District | Address | Phone |
|---|---|---|
| Headquarters | SPUWAC, Nanakpura, Moti Bagh, New Delhi | 24673366 |
| North | P.S. Sarai Rohilla, 1st Floor, Delhi-7 | 23962201 |
| North-West | P.S. Pitampura, Delhi-52 | 27232353 |
| North-East | Old Building, P.S. Nand Nagri, Delhi | 22137210 |
| Central | P.S. Prasad Nagar, Delhi | 25737951 Ext. 7411 |
| New Delhi | Parliament Street, New Delhi-1 | 23361231 Ext. 3447 |
| South | Old P.S. Malviya Nagar building, behind PVR Saket | 26562731 |
| South-West | P.S. Dwarka Sector 9, 1st Floor, near ITL Public School | 25088987 |
| South-East | P.P. Sriniwas Puri, New Delhi | 26841500 |
| East | P.S. Krishna Nagar, Delhi | 22207950 |
| West | P.S. Kirti Nagar, New Delhi | 25447100 Ext. 4205 |
| Outer | Old police station building, near JIMS Institute, Sector 3, Rohini | 27511753 |
Several things circulate confidently on other pages and cannot be verified. We would rather say so than fill the gap.
| The claim | Why we are not repeating it |
|---|---|
| "Five to seven counselling sessions" | No source anywhere — not in any police document, standing order or judgment |
| "Usually one to four months" | Same |
| "Three dates and then FIR" | Same |
| Any figure for what an advocate will charge | Not verifiable, and publishing advocate fee ranges is not something we do |
| Any success rate for anticipatory bail or quashing | Not verifiable |
The one quasi-official figure we found is from a paper written by a serving senior Delhi Police officer around 2006, describing matters running "over a period of three months or so" before a criminal case is registered if unresolved. That is a description from twenty years ago, not a rule, and we are giving it as that.
On fees: there is no statutory fee for giving information about a cognizable offence, and the provision requiring a copy of the FIR says it must be given free of cost. We found no published government fee for a CAW Cell complaint. Legal aid through the legal services authority is free, and for women there is no income test.
It is a unit of the Delhi Police that receives matrimonial complaints and attempts counselling and conciliation before any FIR is registered. The first one was set up in 1983 and separate cells followed in each district. They sit under the Special Police Unit for Women and Children.
None — and this is the most important fact on this page. No statute, no rule and no notification creates a CAW Cell. It is an administrative unit created by internal police order. The Delhi High Court itself described the source of its procedure as an instruction framed by Police Headquarters, not legislation.
Because a body with no statutory existence has no statutory powers of its own. A CAW Cell has only what a police officer has — and before an FIR is registered, almost none of a police officer's powers are engaged. That single point answers most of the questions people arrive with.
The only official source we could find says they are not notified as police stations, and that cases are registered by the police station having jurisdiction. Some practitioner pages claim otherwise; we could not find any notification supporting that, and we are not going to assert it.
Legally, no. The Delhi High Court has held that a CAW Cell has no authority to secure the presence of any person either by coercion or by threat, and that it can conduct proceedings only where both parties join voluntarily. What you receive is a request letter, not a summons.
Two things are both true and pages usually give you only one. There is no legal penalty — no warrant, no contempt, no offence. But there is a practical consequence: the Cell can record that conciliation failed and forward the matter for an FIR. That makes it a strategic decision, and it should be made with an advocate rather than from a web page.
Not lawfully before an FIR. No FIR means no investigation, and no investigation means the power of arrest is not engaged. If an FIR is later registered, the Supreme Court held in January 2026 that for offences punishable up to seven years — which includes this one — a notice of appearance is the rule and arrest the exception.
No power to do any of that exists at this stage, and we could not find any source conferring one. A CAW Cell cannot impound a passport, seize documents, or direct anyone to deposit money. If it is attempted, that is a matter to take to a court, not something to comply with.
No. There is no statute, rule, standing order or judgment making CAW Cell conciliation a precondition to an FIR. It is an administrative convenience, not a gateway. You can ask the police station to register an FIR straight away, and if it refuses there is a written route to the Deputy Commissioner and then to a Magistrate.
Not as a matter of right for this offence, and this is worth knowing before you arrive. The provision requiring information to be recorded by a woman police officer is written for sexual offences and acid attack — it does not cover cruelty by a husband or his relatives. The same is true of the provision about a statement before a woman Magistrate.
Real ones. A copy of the FIR free of cost and forthwith. The right not to be called to a police station at all — you may require to be seen where you live. And the right to be told the progress of the investigation within ninety days. Almost nobody asks for the last one.
Yes, and there is no income limit for women. The Delhi State Legal Services Authority says so in terms. Many women assume they must be below some poverty line and never apply.
Not by itself. Cruelty by a husband or his relatives is not compoundable — the parties cannot lawfully end it by agreement. A settlement recorded at a CAW Cell is material for a later quashing petition and evidence of a compromise. It is not a disposal, and it does not bind a court.
Through a quashing petition in the High Court. The Supreme Court has directed that settlements in these matters be taken there. Delhi High Court grants them regularly where the settlement is genuine — usually requiring both parties to appear and be identified, the agreed payment to be completed before quashing, and sometimes costs.
That one is different, and the difference is useful. The criminal breach of trust count — the stridhan charge usually filed alongside — is compoundable with the permission of the court. The cruelty count is not. So in a typical FIR one count can be compounded before the trial court and the other still needs the High Court.
Yes. The Supreme Court directed in 2013 that criminal courts hearing such complaints should refer the parties to a mediation centre at any stage where elements of settlement exist and both parties are willing, and it repeated the point in August 2026. Delhi has court-annexed mediation centres and a legal services counselling centre for exactly this.
Browse all 21 law pages — search by section number, old or new →
Tell us in one line what stage your matter is at — a notice received, a complaint to be made, or an FIR already registered. We will tell you which practice area it falls under and point you to an advocate who works in it. The first conversation costs nothing.