APHC010071042026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 4021/2026 Between: KORIKANI RAMACHANDRA RAO, S/O KORIKANI SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF P. NAINAVARAM VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522503. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RURAL, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520010. 5. THE SUBCOLLECTOR AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BANDER ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520002. 6. THE TAHSILDAR AND MANDAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4021 of 2026 Dated 18.02.2026 VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT - 520002. 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA II TOWN POLICE STATION, NTR DISTRICT - 520002. 8. GATTAMANENI RATNA KUMARI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. D. NO 29-5-47,CHERUKUPALLY STREET, GOVEMORPETA, VIJAYAWADA CITY - 520002. 9. LAKSHMI PRASAD GHATTAMANENI, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O. D. NO 29-5-47,CHERUKUPALLY STREET, GOVEMORPETA, VIJAYAWADA CITY - 520002. 10. SUDHA VENKATA RAMA SUBBARAO SUBBARAO, S/O NARASHIMHAM, DNO 76-5-8/1,BAJIBABA MANDHIR, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH 520002. 11. NALAM HEMA NAGA VENKATA VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O S.V. ALWAR, R/O NEAR JAMMA MASJID STREET, CANAL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520002. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4021 of 2026 Dated 18.02.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a Writ Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the of the respondents particularly Respondents Nos 4 and 7 Police Authorities in interfering with the civil/revenue disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents and summoning the petitioner to the police station calling him repeatedly over phone issuing oral directions or threats and otherwise interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession cultivation and enjoyment of the subject lands admeasuring Ac 1 04 cents in R S No 23/5 Ac 0 66 cents and Ac 0 55 cents in R S No 27/3A and Ac 1 15 cents in R S No 27/2 situated at P Nainavaram Village Vijayawada Rural Mandal NTR District as illegal arbitrary without authority of law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct Respondents Nos 4 and 7 not to in interfering with the civil/revenue disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents and summon call threaten or otherwise interfere with the petitioner in any manner whatsoever except strictly in accordance with due process of law in respect of the subject lands admeasuring Ac 1 04 cents in R S No 23/5 Ac 0 66 cents and Ac 0 55 cents in R S No 27/3A and Ac 1 15 cents in R S No 27/2 situated at P Nainavaram Village Vijayawada Rural Mandal NTR District and further direct Respondents Nos 5 and 6 Revenue Authorities not to interfere with or alter the existing possession cultivation or enjoyment of the subject lands and not to extend any assistance direct or indirect to private respondents through police or otherwise and further direct all the respondents to strictly adhere to and comply with the orders passed by this Honble Court in W P No 5910 of 2025 dated 11032025 and W P No 9916 of 2025 dated 24 042025 and to pass….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri. N.Ravi Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent Nos.4 and 7 have unnecessarily interfered in the civil disputes and have been calling the petitioner to the police station, thereby subjecting him to harassment. 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4021 of 2026 Dated 18.02.2026 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that respondent No.8 lodged a complaint against the petitioner, which was registered as Crime No.79 of 2025, and the investigation is in progress. It is further submitted that, except in connection with the investigation of the said crime, the petitioner has never been called to the police station or harassed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a notice under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) was issued by the Investigating Officer to the petitioner, and the petitioner has complied with the said notice. 6. Be that as it may, when there is a civil dispute mentioned in any complaint lodged by respondent No.8, either respondent No.4 or respondent No.7 was not expected to call the petitioner to the police station, inasmuch as it is a civil dispute. 7. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S. Masthan Saheb v. P.S.R. Anjaneyulu,1 wherein, at paragraph No.14, it is held as under: 14. The various provisions to which a brief reference is made would show that the power of the police to collect: intelligence regarding any design to commit cognizable offences and prevent commission Of cognizable offences is considered to be the inherent power of the police organization. Whether or not there is a special enactment, the police are expected to perform its functions; namely, maintenance of peace and public order and prevention of cognizable offences. When all these statutes dealing with police in Andhra Pradesh deal with duty of the police relating to cognizable offences, a Police Officer would not be justified in saying that he/she is looking into a complaint made by a person which has, ex facie, trappings of the civil dispute. Indeed, 1 2002 SCC OnLine AP 1212 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4021 of 2026 Dated 18.02.2026 under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of Cr. P.C., it shall be within the power and duty of the police officer to register only a cognizable offence. Though under Section 155 of Cr. P.C. a police officer can make an entry in the appropriate register about the information as to non-cognizable offence, such police officer shall not investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate. As a necessary corollary, it must be concluded that any effort on the part of the police „to look into‟ any complaint by any person which does not contain allegations of commission of cognizable offences would not only violate the various provisions of the Andhra Act, as in this case, but also would violate Section 155(2) of the Cr. P.C. Any such action would be ex facie illegal, whatever be the ipse dixit of the police. There is no presumption in law that every rift in human relations would lead to a civil dispute and civil dispute would likely to result in clashes, resulting in offences against human body. Any such effort on the part of the police to look into the complaints regarding civil disputes is not even the part of the Code of Conduct of the Police, which was communicated by the Government of India in 1987 which reads as under: Code of Conduct for the Police in India [ Union Ministry of Home Affairs Letters No. VI-24021/97/84-GPAI, dated 4-7-1985 and 10-7- 1985.] 1. The Police must bear faithful allegiance to the Constitution of India and respect and uphold the rights of the citizens as guaranteed by it. 2. The Police should not question the propriety or necessity of any law duly enacted. They should enforce the law firmly and impartially, without fear or favour, malice or vindictiveness. 3. The Police should recognize and respect the limitations of their powers and functions. They should not usurp or even seem to usurp the functions of the judiciary and sit in judgment on cases to avenge individuals and punish the guilty. 4. In securing the observance of law or in maintaining order, the Police should as far as practicable, use the methods of persuasion, advice and warning. When the application of force becomes inevitable, only the irreducible minimum of force required in the circumstances should be used. 5. The prime duty of the Police is to prevent crime and disorder and the Police must recognize that the test of their efficiency is the absence of both and not the visible evidence of Police action in dealing with them. 6. The Police must recognize that they are members of the public, with the only difference that in the interest of the society and on its behalf they are employed to give full time attention to duties, which are normally incumbent on every citizen to perform. 7. The Police should realize that the efficient performance of their duties will be dependent on the extent of real co-operation that they receive from the public. This, in turn, will depend on their ability to secure public approval of their conduct and actions and to earn and retain public respect and confidence. 8. The Police should always keep the welfare of the people in mind and be sympathetic and considerate towards them. They should always be ready to offer individual service and friendship and render 6 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4021 of 2026 Dated 18.02.2026 necessary assistance to all without regard to their wealth or social standing. 9. The Police should always place duty before self, should remain calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule and should be ready to sacrifice their lives in protecting those of others. 10. The Police should always be courteous and well mannered; they should be dependable and impartial; they should possess dignity and courage; and should cultivate character and the trust of the people. 11. Integrity of the highest order is the fundamental basis of the prestige of the Police Recognizing this, the Police must keep their private lives scrupulously clean, develop self-restraint and be truthful and honest in thought and deed, in both personal and official life, so that the public may regard them as exemplary citizen. 12. The Police should recognize that their full utility to the State is the best ensured only by maintaining a high standard of discipline, faithful performance of duties in accordance with law and implicit obedience to the lawful directions of commanding ranks and absolute loyalty to the force and by keeping themselves in a state of constant training and preparedness. 13. As members of a secular, democratic State, the Police should strive continually to rise above personal prejudices and promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people in India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities and to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women and disadvantaged segments of the society.” 8. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in J. Lakshmi v. Commissioner of Police,2 wherein, at paragraph No.4, it is held as under: 4. It is well settled that Police cannot interfere in civil disputes. In W.P. No. 12737 of 2003 disposed of on 21-11-2003, I have considered the question regarding the power of Police to interfere in civil disputes and coerce people to compromise civil disputes. After referring to my earlier judgment in S. Masthan Saheb v. P.S.R. Anjaneyulu [2002 (2) An. W.R. 582 (A.P.) : 2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 706 (A.P.).] as well as the code of conduct for the Police prescribed by Union of India vide Ministry of Home Affairs Letters No. VI-24021/97/84-G.P.A. I, dated 4-7-1985 and 10-7-1985, summarized the legal position as under. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when the dispute is purely of civil nature, the jurisdiction under Art. 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 2 2004 SCC OnLine AP 29 7 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4021 of 2026 Dated 18.02.2026 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.” 9. The High Court of Kerala in Sadananda Bai v. Ravi3, wherein, at paragraph No.7, it is held as under: 7. On the role of police in civil disputes, T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J., a learned Judge of this Court in George Mirante v. State of Kerala (1990 (2) KLT 89) held as follows: “In matters involving civil rights, or disputes regarding title and possession over property, it is not proper for this court to interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution with an order for police protection. Police cannot be made the adjudicators of such disputes inter se between the parties, either regarding possession of property or regarding boundaries or regarding easements or the like. These are matters essentially within the domain of the civil courts on which the parties should approach those courts and seek redress. Police does not have the right to decide on such disputes, nor is it proper or competent for them to do so. They do not also have the machinery for the purpose. It is outside the limits of the duties which are cast on them, which is to prevent breach of peace or commission of cognizable offences, and to preserve law and order. It will be totally against the rule of law, if the right of the police is to be used in favour of one party against another without an adjudication by any appropriate authority of the rights of either side. In all such cases, the proper remedy, for a party feeling aggrieved, is to approach the civil court for the establishment of his rights, and seek appropriate injunctive reliefs against the offending party, and if any such orders are attempted to be violated to seek their enforcement by the civil court itself.” (Emphasis supplied).” 3 2008 SCC OnLine Ker 301 8 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4021 of 2026 Dated 18.02.2026 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies on the civil side against the unofficial respondents. However, in view of the law laid down in the above-cited cases, the respondent police authorities are directed not to call the petitioner to the police station except in connection with Crime No.79 of 2025 or any other lawful proceedings, and not to interfere in the civil disputes between the parties. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.02.2026 RSI 9 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4021 of 2026 Dated 18.02.2026 203 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 4021 of 2026 Date: 18.02.2026 RSI