Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gulladurthi Rama Mohan Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 September, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.17498 of 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the highhanded action of the respondents No.3 in interfering with the petitioner's personal life and liberty by insisting him to get the issues involved in the Suit in O.S.No.51 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram with the respondents No.4 to 6 outside the court at their instance as arbitrary, illegal, highhanded, colorable exercise of power and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.3 not to interfere with the petitioner's personal life and liberty by insisting the petitioner to get settle the disputes amongst him and the respondents No.4 to 6 by withdrawing the suit in O.S.No 51 of 2019 on the file of the Honble Junior Civil Judge Kamalapuram"
It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 is his father, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are his brothers. The petitioner inherited the land in an extent of Ac.2.46 cents in Sy.No.443 of Potladurthi Village Fields, Yerraguntla Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District and the house bearing D.No.7 of 177 situated at P.Venkatapuram Village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Y.S.R. District, from his ancestors. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 denied his share and stated that the petitioner is not at all entitled for any share and that they were trying to get mutate their names in revenue records. In those circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.51 of 2019 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram seeking partition of the subject properties. In the said suit, interlocutory application No.174 of 2019 is filed for grant MSM,J Wp_17498_2020 2 temporary injunction against the respondent Nos.4 to 6. In the said suit, initially the respondent Nos.4 to 6 were set ex-parte, subsequently respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. When the respondent No.6 tried to plough the subject land and tried to attack the parents of the petitioner, the petitioner lodged a complaint dated 08.09.2020 before respondent No.3 requesting him to take action against respondent No.6. The respondent No.3 called the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6 to police station, asked the petitioner to get the disputes settled with the respondent Nos.4 to 6. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking the relief stated supra.
During the course of hearing, Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions urged the petition.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home represented that they received a complaint from Superintendent of Police submitted to him in Spandana programme, but it is purely civil in nature among the family members and assured that the police will not interfere with the Civil disputes pending between the parties, unless a crime is registered for commission of any cognizable offence.
Undoubtedly, respondent police have nothing to do with the civil disputes. In the present case, civil suits are pending at the stage of trial. However, the respondent police are interfering with the civil disputes.
In a similar situation in a judgment in "J.Lakshmi @ Lakshamamma v. Commissioner of Police1" a direction was issued to the police not to interfere with the civil disputes while 1 2004 (2) ALD (Cri) 477 MSM,J Wp_17498_2020 3 referring to 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:-
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.
In view of the law declared in the judgment (referred above) and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide Letters No.VI-24021797/84-GPA.I, dated 04.07.1985 and 10.07.1985, even if any crime is registered with regard to pending MSM,J Wp_17498_2020 4 litigation before the Civil Court, the duty of the police is to advice the parties to resolve the dispute in Civil Court and they cannot take up the issue.
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 04.07.1985 and 10.07.1985 strictly. However, in view of the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that respondent police cannot interfere with the pending litigation with reference to same property, which is subject matter of the crime.
Therefore, I am of considered view that it is a fit case to direct respondents - police to follow the guidelines issued by Ministry of Home Affairs vide Letters No. VI-24021797/84-GPA.I, dated 04.07.1985 and 10.07.1985 strictly.
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. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 28.09.2020 Ksp