Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vakika Adinarayana vs The State Of Ap on 3 October, 2024
APHC010422112024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI
PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION NO: 22149/2024
Between:
1. VAKIKA ADINARAYANA, S/O LATE ANJANEYULU, AGED
ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O PUPPALA VILLAGE AND POST,
YADIKI MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPUR
DISTRICT, ANANTAPUR.
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, YADIKI POLICE STATION,
ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
4. C RAMACHANDRUDU, S/O PEDDA SUNKANNA, MAJOR, R/O
PUPPALA VILLAGE, YADIKI MANDAL, ANANTAPUR
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2
VJP,J
W.P.No.22149 of 2024
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of
India for the following relief;
"....declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in
interfering with civil dispute pending in W.P.No.12961/2013
and insisting me to withdraw the I.A.No.01/2022 at the
instance of the 4th Respondent is illegal arbitrary unjust
violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article
14, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the
3rd Respondent not to interfere in civil dispute pending in
W.P.No.12961/2013 and threaten me to withdraw the I.A.
No.01/2022..."
2. Heard Sri Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri S.Sarath Kumar, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Home, for respondents.
3. The short grievance of the Petitioner herein is that the police
authorities are interfering in civil disputes.
4. The written instructions placed by the learned Assistant
Government Pleader would read as follows;
"there are some disputes between both parties regarding
bore existing between their lands and both parties
approached the Court and suit is pending in the Court.
Since the dispute is of civil nature and subjudice, so police
will not interfere into the matter and both parties are advised
VJP,J
to settle the issue before the Civil Court. Except that police
are not to intervene into the civil dispute and not to harass
the petitioner Vakika Adinarayana."
5. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that Court may
pass appropriate orders recording the written instructions placed.
6. It is a settled principle of law, vide catena of decisions that the
police cannot interfere into civil disputes between parties. A learned
Single Judge of the then Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
J. Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma and another v. Commissioner of
Police, Vijayawada and others1 held as follows;
"4. It is well settled that Police cannot interfere in civil
disputes. In W.P.No.12737 of 2003 disposed of on 21-11-
2003, I have considered the question regarding the power of
Police to interfere in civil disputes and coerce people to
compromise civil disputes. After referring to my earlier
judgment in S. Masthan Saheb v. P.S.R. Anjaneyulu2 as
well as the code of conduct for the Police prescribed by
Union of India vide Ministry of Home Affairs Letters No.VI-
24021/97/84-GPA.I, dated 4-7-1985 and 10-7-1985,
summarized the legal position as under.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when the
dispute is purely of civil nature, the jurisdiction under Art.226
of the Constitution cannot be exercised. The Supreme Court
2004 (4) ALT 175 SB
2002(2)ALD(CRI)706
VJP,J
also repeatedly laid down that when the dispute between
the two citizens is of civil nature and no crime is registered,
police have no jurisdiction to interfere in the civil dispute.
Further, when there is a civil litigation either before the court
of law or before the tribunal, the police have no jurisdiction
to interfere in the civil disputes, Further, when there is a
civil litigation either before a court of law or before a
tribunal, the police cannot interfere and even if a
complaint is made in relation to such dispute pending
in a civil court, the citizens have to be advised to
resolve the dispute through a duly constituted court of
law.
In the scheme of the Constitution of India, the duty to
resolve civil disputes is entrusted to judiciary. Police have
no such power. Any interference by police in a pending
civil dispute or a potential civil dispute between two
citizens or two groups of citizens is not within the
province of the police. Furthermore, if a cognizable
offence is reported to the police, it is the duty of the police to
register the crime under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and take up investigation
immediately. In a given case, even if a civil dispute, to say a
land dispute, is pending before a civil court and if the quarrel
between the two warring parties has a potential of resulting
in a law and order problem posing threat to the society at
large, the police can always take up the case only after
registering the crime under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Without
registering the crime and without any reason the police
VJP,J
cannot interfere."
(emphasis supplied)
7. In that view, placing the written instructions filed on record which
state that the police are not interfering in civil disputes, the Writ
Petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
______________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date : 03.10.2024
GRL
