Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kantheti Sai vs The State Of Ap on 11 September, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.15981 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, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.5 herein in interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.7 herein, being cheque bounce case in Calendar Case No.10 of 2020, on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, by calling the petitioner to the Police Station every day for past more than one month, compelling to sit him in the Police Station from morning to late night, pressurizing the petitioner to settle the matter with the respondent No.7 herein under the threat of foisting false cases etc., as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and directing the respondent No.5 herein not to harass the petitioner herein under the influence of the respondent No.7 herein in relation to the civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.7 herein, forthwith and pass such other order."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is doing Fish Seed Farm business under the name and style of M/s Lakshmi Traders Shiva Fish Seed Farm, Bhujabalapatnam, Kaikaluru Mandal, Krishna District for the past so many years. One Granthi Nagavemkata Subba Rao was working with him as clerk and he used to look after his business bank transactions.
3. Immediately after receiving the said Legal Notice dated 16.11.2019, they made a complaint to the police station that their cheque books were lost. When no action was initiated, they made a Police Complaint stating that their cheque books were lost, through 2 mee seva portal bearing Application No.1520317262229, dated 26.11.2019. Subsequently, the Police Department has issued a Certificate in that regard stating that on die enquiry about the missing cheque books but not traced.
4. The respondent No.7 herein has filed a cheque bounce case against the petitioner with regard to the alleged cheque amount of Rs.41,10,780/-, along with certain created Cash credit Bills. The said case was numbered as C.C.No.10 of 2020, on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and he is contesting the same.
5. Fearing further action and having sensed that he is not going to succeed in the Cheque Bounce Case i.e. C.C.No.10 of 2020, the respondent No.7 herein seems to have approached the respondent No.5 herein in order to extract money from him, the respondent No.7 herein, without examining the real facts, has colluded with the respondent No.7 herein and calling him and his brother-in-law viz.Gangisetti Suresh Kumar to the police station on daily basis for the past more than one month and pressurizing them to settle the matter with the respondent No.7 herein, under the threat of foisting false cases against them. Hence, the petitioners requested this Court to issue necessary direction to the respondent police not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioners and unofficial respondents.
6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar reiterated the contentions urged in the petition, whereas learned Government Pleader for Home fairly conceded that they will not interfere with the civil disputes, unless any crime is registered for commission of any cognizable offence. 3
7. Undoubtedly, respondent police have nothing to do with the civil disputes. In the present case, civil suits are pending for adjudication. However, the respondent police are interfering with the civil disputes.
8. In similar situation in a judgment in J.Lakshmi @ Lakshamamma and another vs. Commissioner of Police and Others1, a direction was issued to the police not to interfere with the civil disputes while referring the directions issued by the Court reported in Masthan Saheb v. P.S.R. Anjaneyulu2 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 1 (2004 (2) ALD Cr.477) 2 2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 706 (A.P) 4 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.
9. In view of the law declared by the 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 5 4-7-1985 and 10-7-1985 strictly and not to interfere with civil disputes.
12. 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 petitioners for commission of any cognizable offence.
Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 11.09.2020 VSL 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.15981 OF 2020 Date: 11.09.2020 VSL