logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1566 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Writ Petition No. 22993 of 2022
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM
Parties : Jonnala Sambrajyamma & Others The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principle Secretary, Guntur & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: B. Paramesewara Rao, Advocate. For the Respondents: GP for Home, Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 18-08-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Article 226 of the Constitution

2. Catch Words:
civil dispute, police jurisdiction, writ petition

3. Summary:
The petitioners sought a direction restraining Police Officer No. 3 from interfering in a civil suit (O.S. No. 151 of 2019) and related proceedings. They alleged that Police Officer No. 3, acting on instructions from respondents 4‑6, harassed them and attempted to force settlement or vacate the property. The Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the police had only conducted an enquiry based on a report and had not interfered otherwise. The Court noted that no criminal case exists and reiterated that police lack jurisdiction to intervene in purely civil disputes, as affirmed by the Apex Court. Accepting the police officer’s written assurance of non‑interference, the Court directed the officer not to involve himself in the civil dispute except as per due process. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were ordered closed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. This writ petition is filed to direct the respondent No.3 police not to interfere in civil matter in O.S. No.151 of 2019 pending on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur and C.R.P. No.960 of 2021 pending before the High Court and not to harass the petitioners and their family members at the instance of respondent Nos.4 to 6.

2. Case of the petitioners is that they filed a petition in I.A. No. 891 of 2019 in O.S. No.151 of 2019 on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur and the same is dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2021 and assailing the said order, petitioners preferred C.R.P. No.960 of 2021 before this Court and this Court ordered notice before admission. While the matter stood thus, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the suit schedule property with the assistance of respondent No.3 police and further, respondent No.3 calling them to the police station and insisting them either to settle the matter or to vacate the schedule property. Respondent No.3 has no right to interfere in the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader filed written instructions of respondent No.3 and in which, it is mentioned that respondent No.5 gave report dated 18.07.2022 to respondent No.3 and the same is entered in general diary and further, though the petitioners were called to the police station to conduct enquiry, they did not come. But, filed this petition. Finally, it is mentioned that except conducting enquiry basing on the report given by the respondent No.5, he has not interfered in civil matters and not harassed the petitioners at the instances of respondent Nos.4 to 6.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

5. Admittedly, no crime is registered against the petitioners and even as per the version of the respondent No.3, there are civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6 in respect of immovable properties and civil cases are pending. In this regard, it is to be mentioned that it is well settled that police cannot interfere in civil disputes and the Hon’ble Apex Court repeatedly held that when the dispute is purely of civil nature, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised and further, when the dispute between two citizens is of civil nature and no crime is registered, police have no jurisdiction to interfere in the civil dispute. It is also settled that in the scheme of Constitution of India, duty to resolve civil dispute is entrusted to judiciary and police have no such power and involvement of police in a pending civil dispute or potential civil dispute between two citizens or two groups of citizens is not within the provisions of the police.

6. As per the version of the respondent No.3 except calling for enquiry basing on the report given by the respondent No.5, he never involved in the civil proceedings pending between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6.

7. Since respondent No.3 has already submitted written instructions stating that he will not involve in the civil disputes which are pending between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition may be disposed of directing the respondent No.3 not to interfere in the civil disputes of the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6.

8. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 not to interfere in the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6 except under due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel there to, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal