Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 637 (AP)

B. Vaheeda v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-10-01

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2020
JUDGMENT M Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: "to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, to declare the action of the 3rd respondent, who under the influence of the respondents 4 and 5 in entering into civil dispute by calling petitioner either by phone or by sending his subordinates to come to the police and threatening her to settle the civil dispute as per the terms and conditions of the respondents 4 and 5 with regard to petitioner's land bearing Sy.No.393-A-2-C with an extent of Ac.0-11 cents which is within the Municipal limits of Nandyala Sub Registration District and Saibaba Nagar, Kurnool District, A.P. which is under her possession and having all revenue records in her name even inspite of showing injunction order passed in I.A.No.916 of 2020 in O.S.No.386 of 2020 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyala as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play besides violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.3 not to call the petitioner to the police station without any notice and crime against her and threaten her to settle the civil dispute with the respondents 4 and 5 with regard to petitioner's land bearing Sy.No.393-A-2-C with an extent of Ac.0-11 cents which is within the Municipal limits of Nandyala Sub Registration District and Saibaba Nagar, Kurnool District, A.P. and pass such other order." 2. Though the petitioner made several allegations about interference of the police in civil disputes, in view of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that the police are not interfering with any civil dispute, no further adjudication is necessary. But this Court time and again issued directions to the police not to interfere with the civil disputes. 3. But this Court time and again issued directions to the police not to interfere with the civil disputes. 3. In similar situation in a judgment in J.Lakshmi @ Lakshamamma and another vs. Commissioner of Police and Others, (2004) 2 ALD(Cri) 477 , a direction was issued to the police not to interfere with the civil disputes while referring the directions issued by the Court Masthan Saheb v. P.S.R. Anjaneyulu, (2002) 2 ALD(Cri) 706 (A.P) as wells as guidelines issued by the Union of India vide Ministry of Home Affairs Letters No.VI-24021797/84-GPA.1, dated 04.07.1985 and 10.07.1985 summarized the legal position as under:- The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when the dispute is purely of civil nature, the jurisdiction under Article 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. 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. 4. In view of the law declared by this Court in the above judgment and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide Letters No. VI-24021797/84-GPA.I, dated 4-7-1985 and 10-7-1985, even if any crime is registered with regard to pending litigation before the Civil Court, the duty of the police is to advice the parties to resolve the dispute duly constituted in Civil Court and they cannot take up the issue. 5. Hence, the respondent police are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide Letters No.VI-24021797/84-GPA.I, dated 4-7-1985 and 10-7-1985 strictly. However, in view of the submission of learned Government Pleader for Home that respondent police cannot interfere with the pending litigation with reference to same property, which is the subject matter of the case. 6. Therefore, I am of considered view that it is a fit case to direct respondent police to follow the guidelines issued by Ministry of Home Affairs vide Letters No. VI-24021797/84-GPA.I, dated 4-7-1985 and 10-7-1985 strictly and not to interfere with civil disputes relating to land in Sy.No.393-A-2-C with an extent of Ac.0-11 cents which is within the Municipal limits of Nandyala Sub Registration District and Saibaba Nagar, Kurnool District. 7. With the above direction, Writ Petition is disposed of , at the stage of admission itself, with the consent of both the counsel. However, this Order will not preclude the respondent police to take appropriate action if any crime is registered against the petitioner for commission of any cognizable offence. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.