APHC010468262018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 22054/2018 Between: 1. NAMBURI RAJA, S/O.SAMUEL SUNIL KUMAR AGED 26 YEARS OCC CULTIVATION AND BUSINESS,R/O. ANANDAPETA, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH- PIN- 521101 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY,HOME DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETAIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH -PIN 522503 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM,O/O THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PARASUPETA, MACHILIPATNAM A.P-521002 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BANDARU RURAL POLICE STATION, M.R.O OFFICE PREMISES, EEDEPALLI MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521001 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BANDARU RURAL POLICE STATION, M.R.O OFFICE PREMISES, EEDEPALLI, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521001 5. RAVI KUMAR, S/O. NOT KNOWN, HINDU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BANDARU RURAL POLICE STATION, M.R.O OFFICE PREMISES, EEDEPALLI, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521001 2 6. SRI RAGANADH, S/O. NOT KNOWN, HINDU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BANDARU RURAL POLICE STATION, M.R.O OFFICE PREMISES, EEDEPALLI, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521001 7. LAKSHMI NARASIMHAM, W/O.NARASIMHAN, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44YEARS, R/O. SHOBADUPHOWAR, 4TH CLASS, J.P.NAGAR, 1ST PHASE, BANGALORE, 8. DAMARLA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O.CHINNAPURAM VILLAGE, BANDARU MANDALAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M RADHAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. . The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No.22054 OF 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent police in interfering in civil disputes and directing the petitioner to settle the matter with the Respondent No 7 and 8 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the R 5 and R 6 to punish them accordingly and further direct the Respondent officers to compensate the petitioner while making it clear that the police cannot interfere with the civil disputes which is being pending for adjudication before the competent civil court and pass…” 2. Heard Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3. The writ petition is filed alleging that the respondents directing the petitioner to settle the impugned dispute with R7 and R8, illegally and that police are interfering in civil disputes. 4. Counter-affidavit filed by R1 to R4, unofficial respondents traversing the allegations of the petitioner, but at the same time they conceded that the impugned dispute is of civil in nature and therefore, they advised the respective parties to approach competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievance, except that they did not interfere in the matter, as alleged in the affidavit. 5. It appears that the then Circle Inspector of Police/R3 and the Station House Officer/R4 were implicated in the petition in their 4 present capacity of R5 and R6. R7 and R8 are the unofficial respondents. 6. Admittedly, R5 and R6 are not working in the concerned Police Station as on the day. The allegation is that when they are working at the relevant point in time, they interfered in civil matter, and illegally pressurized the petitioner to settle the matter with R7 and R8. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, as the counter- affidavit of R1 to R4 would disclose that the impugned dispute is a civil dispute, and that R5 and R6 presently not working in the Police Station, and in view of the earlier interim orders rendered by this Court, as of now, no further orders are required in the writ petition, except an observation that the respondents/police shall not involve in the impugned dispute, since it is civil in nature. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is closed at the stage of admission without going into the merits of the case with the above observation. However, the petitioner is at liberty to initiate necessary action in future, if the police violate the above observation of the Court. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 12.08.2025 Pmk 5 32 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No:22054 OF 2018 Date: 12.08.2025 Pmk