| |
CDJ 2026 APHC 239
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Writ Petition No. 4369 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO |
| Parties : Chitte Pratap Reddy & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Amaravati & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Karimireddy Hema Chandra Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondents: GP For Home. |
| Date of Judgment : 17-02-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 35 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
- Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India
- Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
2. Catch Words:
Mandamus, writ, police interference, civil dispute, NDPS, fundamental rights, arbitrary action, criminal intimidation, false case, land alienation.
3. Summary:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the police to cease arbitrary summons and intimidation, alleging violation of procedural safeguards and fundamental rights. They contended that police actions were motivated by private parties to influence a civil land dispute. The respondents argued that the petitioner was implicated in an NDNDPS case, justifying police involvement. The court held that police must not interfere in civil disputes, but may pursue legitimate criminal proceedings under the NDPS Act. Accordingly, the court directed the police not to intervene in the civil matter while preserving their authority to act on the criminal case. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:
“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction declaring the persistent and arbitrary actions of Respondents particularly Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the instigation Private Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in frequently calling the Petitioners to the police stations without any registered crime, FIR, or legal basis, or complaint or without arrest warrant or without issuing the mandatory Notice of Appearance under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, as illegal, arbitrary, and a colorable exercise of power and continuous criminal intimidation, severe mental torture, and specifically the illegal threats of framing the Petitioners in a 'False Large Quantity Ganja Case' (NDPS) to coerce the alienation of ancestral land in Survey No. 585-1 are in flagrant violation of the mandatory procedural safeguards and guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, thereby infringing upon the Petitioner's Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and declaring the action of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in interfering with a purely civil land dispute regarding settled possession of agricultural land in Survey No. 585-1 (Khata 1325) at the behest of Private Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 as ultra vires and contrary to the law of the land, and consequently directing the Respondents to provide immediate and effective police protection to the Petitioners and his family members and to strictly ensure that Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 or any persons claiming through them do not interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and cultivation of the subject land…”
2. Heard the learned counsel for Petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader.
3. Sri K. Hema Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for Petitioners, submits that, at the behest of Respondent Nos.7 and 8, the police authorities are interfering in a civil dispute relating to certain immovable property.
4. Per contra, Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Petitioner No.1 is involved in a ganja case, and that Crime No. 11 of 2026 of Vallur Police Station under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, ‘the N.D.P.S Act’) has been registered against him. It is further submitted that civil disputes are pending between the Petitioners and the unofficial Respondents.
5. Indeed, the police shall refrain from interfering in the civil dispute. However, even assuming that Petitioner No.1 is involved in the N.D.P.S case, the police, under the guise of the said case, cannot resort to arm- twisting methods against Petitioner No.1 in settling the civil disputes.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing Respondent Nos.4 to 6 not to interfere in the civil disputes pending between the Petitioners and Respondent Nos.7 and 8. However, it is made clear that the police are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law against Petitioner No.1 in connection with Crime No.11 of 2026 of Vallur Police Station.
7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
|
| |
