C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. The case of the petitioner is that he filed suit in O.S.No.84 of 2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama, against the 4th respondent herein, in respect of the subject property, for a permanent injunction. Though the trial court granted ad interim injunction, the 1st respondent-Station House Officer, Kanchikacherla Police Station, in collusion with fourth respondent summoned the petitioner to the police station; threatened the petitioner to withdraw the suit and handover possession of the property to the 4th respondent. Alleging interference by police official in civil dispute, the present writ petition came to be filed.

2. Though various grounds are raised, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer, in seeking a direction to the respondent police not to call the petitioner to the police station, without following due process of law.

3. The learned Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, while denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, submitted that the 1st respondent never called the petitioner to the police station and that any action sought to be taken, will only be in accordance with law.

4. It is to be noted that this Court in G.B.C. Raj Gopal v. The Government of A.P. Rep., by The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad, A.P. and six others in W.P.No.34137 of 2013, vide order dated 24.04.2014 while dealing with power of adjudication of civil/property dispute held as under:

"Vi. Power of Adjudication of Civil/property Disputes is Conferred only on the Judiciary and not on Police Officers:

50. Maintenance of peace and public order, prevention of crime and investigation of cognisable offences are functions which Police Officers are, statutorily, obligated to discharge. While Section 154(1) Cr.P.C confers power, and casts a duty, on the police officer to register a cognisable offence, Section 155 Cr.P.C. enables a police officer to make an entry in the appropriate register, regarding information relating to a non-cognisable offence. He cannot investigate a non-cognisable offence without the order of the Magistrate. As a necessary corollary, any attempt by a police officer to investigate a complaint, which does not contain allegations of the commission of a cognisable offence, without permission from the Magistrate would violate Section 155(2) Cr. P.C and is, ex facie, illegal. There is no presumption in law that every rift in human relations would lead to a civil dispute, and a civil dispute is likely to result in clashes resulting in offences against the human body. A Police Officer would not be justified in saying that he/she is examining a complaint which, ex facie, has the trappings of a civil dispute. (S. Masthan Saheb 11). Even if a civil dispute has a criminal element, which falls within the ambit of a cognisable offence, with the potential of a law and order problem posing threat to the society at large, a Police Officer can take up investigation only after registering the complaint under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma v. Commissioner of Police).

51. The function of resolving civil disputes is entrusted to the judiciary. Police officers lack jurisdiction to interfere in civil/property disputes between two citizens. Even in criminal case, their role is limited to the registration of complaints and causing investigation. The power to adjudge whether or not an accused is guilty of having committed a criminal offence, and to convict and sentence him there for, is vested exclusively in the judicial branch of the State. Judicial power cannot be exercised by agencies outside the judicial orbit and, where there is no legislative foundation for exercise of judicial power by a forum, it has no legal capacity to entertain requests for adjudication. Judicial power is a facet of sovereign power and can be conferred only by a Statute or by a Statutory instrument. It cannot b