1. Challenge to police summoning petitioners at behest of respondents to pressurize compromise in civil property dispute. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(AP) 1231
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.
Gadikoyyala Satyanarayana, S/o Narayana Swami – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., By Its Principal Secretary, Home Department – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.1510 of 2026
Decided On : 20-01-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Hemanth Kumar Venna
For the Respondent: P.Ajay Babu, Assistant Government Pleader
For the Petitioner: Hemanth Kumar Venna
For the Respondent: P.Ajay Babu, Assistant Government Pleader
Police have no jurisdiction to interfere in civil disputes, call parties to the station, or coerce compromises. Their authority is limited to preventing cognizable offences and maintaining public order; the adjudication of civil rights is the exclusive domain of the judiciary.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154 and 155 - Police interference in civil disputes - Police officers are not justified in calling parties to the police station or pressurizing them to compromise in matters which are ex facie civil disputes pertaining to immovable property - Power of the police is limited to the maintenance of peace, public order, and prevention of cognizable offences - Any effort to investigate a complaint that does not contain allegations of cognizable offences violates statutory provisions and is ex facie illegal (Paras 4 and 5)
(B) Code of Conduct for the Police - Police must recognize and respect the limitations of their powers and functions - They shall not usurp the functions of the judiciary or sit in judgment on cases to avenge individuals (Para 5)
(C) Jurisdiction - Adjudication of civil rights, title, or possession over property is exclusively within the domain of civil courts - Police cannot act as adjudicators of disputes regarding possession or boundaries, as they lacks the machinery for such adjudication (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the action of police officers who, acting on a written report filed by opposite parties regarding a property dispute, called the petitioners to the police station and pressured them to reach a compromise regarding the civil dispute.
Findings of Court:
When a complaint describes a civil dispute, the police are not expected to call the parties to the police station. Parties must be advised to resolve such issues through the duly constituted civil courts.
Issues: Whether police officers have the authority to call parties to the police station and coerce them into a compromise in a matter that is essentially a civil dispute over immovable property.
Ratio Decidendi: The resolution of civil disputes is entrusted to the judiciary, not the police. Under the law, police are empowered to register and investigate only cognizable offences. Interference in civil disputes or potential civil litigation, without the registration of a crime under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is beyond the legal province of police authority.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with a direction to the police not to interfere in the civil dispute in future.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners challenged police action; State submitted police advised parties to approach civil court on written report. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Police cannot interfere in civil disputes by calling parties to station or pressurizing compromise without cognizable offence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Police have no jurisdiction to interfere in civil disputes; only cognizable offences require registration and investigation under CrPC. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
5. Writ petition disposed; petitioners given liberty to pursue civil remedies; police directed not to interfere in civil dispute. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Can police interfere in a civil dispute between private parties?
No. Police have no jurisdiction to interfere in civil disputes. They cannot call parties to the station or pressurize compromise without a cognizable offence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
7. What is the police's duty when a complaint contains only civil allegations?
Police must not investigate; they should advise the complainant to approach the civil court. Any such police action is illegal and violates the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. What legal principle governs police action when a cognizable offence is reported in a civil dispute?
If a cognizable offence is reported, police must register a case under Section 154 CrPC and investigate. Without registration, they cannot interfere. (Para 5 , 6 )
9. What is the remedy for a person aggrieved by police interference in a civil dispute?
The aggrieved party may approach the civil court for adjudication of rights and seek appropriate injunctive relief; police cannot decide such disputes. (Para 7 , 8 )
ORDER :
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.
The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the action of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in calling the petitioners to the police station at the behest of respondent Nos.6 to 8 and pressurizing them to compromise with respondent Nos.6 to 8 with regard to the civil disputes pertaining to immovable property.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that on 05.01.2026, respondent No.6 attended the Prathipadu Police Station and presented a written report against the petitioners to respondent No.3, requesting to take necessary action against the petitioners. It is further submitted that Bavuruwaka Village is a semi-agency area and is a sensitive village within the jurisdiction of Prathipadu Police Station. Later, respondent No.4 advised respondent No.6 and the other unofficial respondents to approach the Civil Court to settle the issue legally.
4. Be that as it may, when there is a civil dispute mentioned in any complaint lodged by respondent No.6, either respondent No.3 or respondent No.4 was not expected to even call any of the petitioners to the police station, inasmuch as it is a civil dispute.
5. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S. Masthan Saheb v. P.S.R. Anjaneyulu , 2002 SCC OnLine AP 1212 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, 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
