Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T.Jagan Mohan Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 10 September, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.16149 OF 2020
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:-
"to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents particularly the 3rd respondent in attempting to prevent the petitioner from enjoying his site with an extent of 5.75 cents or 278.3 Sq. yards in Sy.Nos.673/3 & 673/4 of Chinnachowk Village (bearing Plot No.84 in Reddy Colony, Ward No.36) in Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, at the instance of 4th respondent though civil litigation is pending without any authority, without any valid reason or ground as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, highhanded, malafide and discriminative and against statutory provisions and consequently direct the respondents particularly the 3rd respondent not to prevent the petitioner from enjoying the subject site."
2. It is the contention of petitioner that the 4th respondent filed O.S.No.81/2012 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa against petitioner's wife seeking permanent injunction in respect of site in an extent of Ac.5.75 cents in Sy.Nos.673/3 & 673/4 of Chinnachowk Village (bearing Plot No.84 in Reddy Colony, Ward No.36) in Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and the suit was dismissed on contest.
3. Thereafter, the 4th respondent filed A.S.No.35/2016 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Kadapa and the same is pending. In the said A.S.No.35/2016, the 4th respondent herein filed I.A.No.143/2018, seeking amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 2 17 CPC, seeking relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The same was dismissed by way of elaborate order on contest. The 4th respondent and his son gave letters to 2nd and 3rd respondents with false and evasive version against the petitioner and his family members. Hence, this Writ Petition.
4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner Sri L.J.Veera Reddy reiterated the contentions whereas learned Government Pleader for Home fairly conceded that the respondent police will not interfere with the civil disputes, unless any crime is registered for commission of any cognizable offence.
5. Undoubtedly, the respondent police have nothing to do with the civil disputes. In the present case, a civil suit in A.S.No.35/2016 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Kadapa is pending. In the said A.S.No.35/2016, the 4th respondent herein filed I.A.No.143/2018, seeking amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction and the same was dismissed.
6. In a similar situation, in a judgment in J.Lakshmi @ Lakshamamma and another vs. Commissioner of Police and Others1, a direction was issued to the police officials not to interfere with the civil disputes, while referring the directions issued by the Apex Court reported in Masthan Saheb v. P.S.R. Anjaneyulu2 as wells as the 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:- 1
(2004 (2) ALD Cr.477) 2 2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 706 (A.P) 3 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. 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. In view of the law declared by the authorities 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 them to resolve the dispute duly constituted Civil Court and cannot take up the issue.
8. Hence, 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. 4 However, in view of the submission of learned Government Pleader for Home that respondent police shall not interfere with the pending litigation with reference to same property, which is subject matter of the crime.
9. 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.
10. 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 action, in the event of registration of any crime against the petitioner for any cognizable offence.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 10.09.2020 IS 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.16149 OF 2020 Date: 10.09.2020 IS