P. S. MISHRA C. J.

( 1 ) THE issue involved in these petitions concern the state pf policing by resorting to certain methods which are allegedly abuse of the police power, by the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada city and the District Superintendent of Police, Medak district at Sangareddy. Proceedings have started on the basis of the representations which have been treated as Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS have since entered appearance, filed counter affidavits, produced relevant materials and learned Advocate General has been heard in detail, besides learned counsel for the petitioners.

( 3 ) ONE of the issues which has received serious attention of all concerned, is the attempt of the police officers to evolve some indigenous mechanism for some sort of enquiry and settlement of disputes between the complainant on the one hand and the respondent (accused) on the other hand in so-called petitions made directly to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada as well as the District Superintendent of Police, Medak. The latter has allegedly created a People s Council, besides other things to do, to hold panchayats for land disputes, family disputes, petty cases and other civil disputes and report to the Sub-Inspector of Police on condition,"all such disputes should be settled through the consent of both the parties. Nobody should be compelled to abide by the decision of People s Council"and to monitor the functioning of Government Offices, welfare and developmental measures including fair price shops. Although there is no such clear statement in respect of the conduct of Vijayawada police, it is alleged that the police are mainly settling matters pertaining to debts due on promissory notes, finance business, negotiable instruments, tenancy matters, maintenance cases, matrimonial matters, family settlements and other types of civil litigation.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada. has stated that it is incorrect to say that police are running parallel judicial system in their police stations and that at police headquarters they are holding private Darbars with local goondas and political bosses. He has also disputed the allegation that the police are interfering in civil matters and mainly settling debts due on promissory notes, finance business, tenancy matters, family settlements, marriage settlements and maintenance eases. He has, however, stated as follows:"it is a fact that one day in a week has been specifically car-marked giving an opportunity for the aggrieved public to meet the Commissioner and to represent their grievances for administrative convenience. This does not mean that they should not meet the officer during remaining days. A particular day is ear-marked so that it will be well convenient for the public to meet the officer and to represent their grievances. "it may be noted that it is nowehere laid down that police should not entertain non-cognizable offences or such matters which may overlap non-cognizable offences and/or civil nature affairs. Section 155, Cr. P. C. is very clear in this regard and if, however, the representation is of non-cognizable, it shall be entered in the non-cognizable register and instruct the party accordingly. Generally, in most of the matters, the grievance of the petitioner is that the concerned Station House Officer has not entertained his report and not acting on it. In such matters, we cannot leave the petitioner at. the mercy of the Station House Officer in acting upon the said report. It may be noted that new sub-section (3) to Section 154, Cr. P. C. has been added in 1973 amendments for the Cr. P. C. to check the refusal of the police in recording the F. I. R. In such an eventuality, the aggrieved person has been given a right to send his information by post direct to the Superintendent of Police for investigation. Now, to make the matters easier and save time, the Superintendent of Police is giving

Click Here to Read the rest of this document