( 1 ) FIRST petitioner is wife of second petitioner. It is her case that she purchased a house site in the auction conducted by court in E. P. No. 317 of 1966 in O. S. No. 4341 of 1965. Fourth respondent thereafter filed a suit which was dismissed. His first appeal and second appeal as well were dismissed. Thereafter, it is alleged that fourth respondent tried to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the house site compelling the petitioners to file O. S. No. 1049 of 1983 for permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 2-11-1988. The petitioners filed a Transfer a. S. No. 2260 of 2004 before this court, which was allowed and the suit was decreed as prayed for. The same has become final. It is alleged that respondents 4 and 5 filed c. C. No. 662 of 2001 on the file of the court of ii Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, under Sections 120-B, 323, 447, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) against petitioners, which is pending. In spite of the same, the Police regularly calling the petitioners to Police Station for enquiry and trying to force the petitioners to act in such a manner so as to help respondents 4 and 5. Therefore, petitioners filed present Writ petition.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant government Pleader for Home.

( 3 ) A reading of the affidavit accompanying the Writ Petition would show that there has been civil litigation between petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 for the last at least two decades. If there is any complaint made by respondents 4 and 5 in c. C. No. 662 of 2001, it is for the criminal court to decide the matter. Police have no role in the same unless they are ordered to enquire into the matter under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C ). The petitioners possession in respect of the house site purchased by them in E. P. No. 317 of 1966 cannot be enforced either by respondents 4 and 5 or by respondents 1 to 3 unless and until there is a court order.

( 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 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- gpa. 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 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 di