1. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the action of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in calling the petitioners to the police station at the behest of respondent Nos.6 to 8 and pressurizing them to compromise with respondent Nos.6 to 8 with regard to the civil disputes pertaining to immovable property.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that on 05.01.2026, respondent No.6 attended the Prathipadu Police Station and presented a written report against the petitioners to respondent No.3, requesting to take necessary action against the petitioners. It is further submitted that Bavuruwaka Village is a semi-agency area and is a sensitive village within the jurisdiction of Prathipadu Police Station. Later, respondent No.4 advised respondent No.6 and the other unofficial respondents to approach the Civil Court to settle the issue legally.

4. Be that as it may, when there is a civil dispute mentioned in any complaint lodged by respondent No.6, either respondent No.3 or respondent No.4 was not expected to even call any of the petitioners to the police station, inasmuch as it is a civil dispute.

5. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S. Masthan Saheb v. P.S.R. Anjaneyulu,( 2002 SCC OnLine AP 1212)wherein, at paragraph No.14, it is held as under:

                  14. The various provisions to which a brief reference is made would show that the power of the police to collect: intelligence regarding any design to commit cognizable offences and prevent commission Of cognizable offences is considered to be the inherent power of the police organization. Whether or not there is a special enactment, the police are expected to perform its functions; namely, maintenance of peace and public order and prevention of cognizable offences. When all these statutes dealing with police in Andhra Pradesh deal with duty of the police relating to cognizable offences, a Police Officer would not be justified in saying that he/she is looking into a complaint made by a person which has, ex facie, trappings of the civil dispute. Indeed, under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of Cr. P.C., it shall be within the power and duty of the police officer to register only a cognizable offence. Though under Section 155 of Cr. P.C. a police officer can make an entry in the appropriate register about the information as to non-cognizable offence, such police officer shall not investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate. As a necessary corollary, it must be concluded that any effort on the part of the police „to look into‟ any complaint by any person which does not contain allegations of commission of cognizable offences would not only violate the various provisions of the Andhra Act, as in this case, but also would violate Section 155(2) of the Cr. P.C. Any such action would be ex facie illegal, whatever be the ipse dixit of the police. There is no presumption in law that every rift in human relations would lead to a civil dispute and civil dispute would likely to result in clashes, resulting in offences against human body. Any such effort on the part of the police to look into the complaints regarding civil disputes is not even the part of the Code of Conduct of the Police, which was communicated by the Government of India in 1987 which reads as under:

                  Code of Conduct for the Police in India [ Union Ministry of Home Affairs Letters No. VI-24021/97/84-GPAI, dated 4-7-1985 and 10-7-1985.]

                  1. The Police must bear faithful allegiance to the Constitution of India and respect and uphold the rights of the citizens as guaranteed by it.

                  2. The Police should not question the propriety or necessity of any law duly enacted. They should enforce the law firmly and impartially, without fear or favour, malice or vindictiveness.

                  3. The Police should recognize and respect the limitations of their powers and functions. They should not usurp or even seem to usurp the functions of the judiciary and sit in judgment on cases to avenge individuals and punish the guilty.

                  4. In securing the observance of law or in maintaining order, the Police should as far as practicable, use the methods of persuasion, advice and warning. When the application of force becomes inevitable, only the irreducible minimum of force required in the circumstances should be used.

                  5. The prime duty of the Police is to prevent crime and disorder and the Police must recognize that the test of their efficiency is the absence of both and not the visible evidence of Police action in dealing with them.

                  6. The Police must recognize that they are members of the public, with the only difference that in the interest of the society and on its behalf they are employed to give full time attention to duties, which are normally incumbent on every citizen to perform.

                  7. The Police should realize that the efficient performance of their duties will be dependent on the extent of real co-operation that they receive from the public. This, in turn, will depend on their ability to secure public approval of their conduct and actions and to earn and retain public respect and confidence.

                  8. The Police should always keep the welfare of the people in mind and be sympathetic and considerate towards them. They should always be ready to offer individual service and friendship and render necessary assistance to all without regard to their wealth or social standing.

                  9. The Police should always place duty before self, should remain calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule and should be ready to sacrifice their lives in protecting those of others.

                  10. The Police should always be courteous and well mannered; they should be dependable and impartial; they should possess dignity and courage; and should cultivate character and the trust of the people.

                  11. Integrity of the highest order is the fundamental basis of the prestige of the Police Recognizing this, the Police must keep their private lives scrupulously clean, develop self-restraint and be truthful and honest in thought and deed, in both personal and official life, so that the public may regard them as exemplary citizen.

                  12. The Police should recognize that their full utility to the State is the best ensured only by maintaining a high standard of discipline, faithful performance of duties in accordance with law and implicit obedience to the lawful directions of commanding ranks and absolute loyalty to the force and by keeping themselves in a state of constant training and preparedness.

                  13. As members of a secular, democratic State, the Police should strive continually to rise above personal prejudices and promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people in India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities and to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women and disadvantaged segments of the society.”

6. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in J. Lakshmi v. Commissioner of Police,( 2004 SCC OnLine AP 29) wherein, at paragraph No.4, it is held as under:

                  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. Anjaneyulu [2002 (2) An. W.R. 582 (A.P.) : 2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 706 (A.P.).] 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-G.P.A. 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 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 cannot interfere.”

7. The High Court of Kerala in Sadananda Bai v. Ravi(2008 SCC OnLine Ker 301), wherein, at paragraph No.7, it is held as under:

                  7. On the role of police in civil disputes, T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J., a learned Judge of this Court in George Mirante v. State of Kerala (1990 (2) KLT 89) held as follows:

                  “In matters involving civil rights, or disputes regarding title and possession over property, it is not proper for this court to interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution with an order for police protection. Police cannot be made the adjudicators of such disputes inter se between the parties, either regarding possession of property or regarding boundaries or regarding easements or the like. These are matters essentially within the domain of the civil courts on which the parties should approach those courts and seek redress. Police does not have the right to decide on such disputes, nor is it proper or competent for them to do so. They do not also have the machinery for the purpose. It is outside the limits of the duties which are cast on them, which is to prevent breach of peace or commission of cognizable offences, and to preserve law and order. It will be totally against the rule of law, if the right of the police is to be used in favour of one party against another without an adjudication by any appropriate authority of the rights of either side. In all such cases, the proper remedy, for a party feeling aggrieved, is to approach the civil court for the establishment of his rights, and seek appropriate injunctive reliefs against the offending party, and if any such orders are attempted to be violated to seek their enforcement by the civil court itself.” (Emphasis supplied).”

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedies on the civil side against the unofficial respondents. However, considering the law laid in above cited cases, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed not to interfere in the civil dispute in future.

9. In the result, 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.