( 1 ) PETITIONER complains that the 1st respondent at the instance of the 2nd respondent is interfering and coercing the petitioner to settle the dispute with the 2nd second respondent. ( 2 ) THE petitioner s grievance is that the 2nd respondent preferred the complaint to the 1st respondent stating that he is making unauthorized construction over his property, which is interference with the beneficent enjoyment of the 2nd respondent s property. On such a complaint, which is civil in nature, the 1st respondent called him to the Police Station on 7-6-2004, 9-6-2004 and 13-6-2004 and directed the petitioner to settle the dispute with the second respondent. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for the 1st respondent and the learned Counsel Mr. Vilas Afzalpurkar, for the Respondent No. 2. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is not asserted or established that the complaint is with regard to commission or threat of commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioner. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances, the first respondent has no manner of jurisdiction or authority to investigate into such a complaint. If the second respondent has any grievance against the specified conduct of the petitioner, the second respondent has ample opportunities and remedies against the petitioner in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Inviting the Police to settle civil disputes would disturb the delicate harmony of separation of powers between the civil and police administration. ( 6 ) FOR the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is allowed directing the first respondent to refrain from interfering in civil disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. No order as to costs.