Police authorities have no legal mandate to act as adjudicators in purely civil or monetary disputes and must refrain from using coercive measures against individuals in such cases, unless acting strictly within the scope of procedure established by law for cognizable offenses.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a declaration that the action of respondent No.7 in illegally entering the Petitioner’s residence, illegally detaining the petitioner, seizing his mobile phone, coercing him to accompany them without authority of law, and interfering in a purely civil dispute at the instance of respondent No.8 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to initiate appropriate action against respondent Nos.5 and 7 for abuse of official power and against respondent No.8 for misusing the police machinery and further direct the respondents not to register any false or frivolous criminal cases against the petitioner or interfere with his life and liberty except in accordance with due process of law.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sridhar Bhuvangiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

I. FACTS:

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondents-police authorities at the instance of respondent No.8 are taking coercive steps against the petitioner and are interfering in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.8.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

II. SUBMISSIONS:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.8 is purely civil in nature and the police have no authority to interfere in such dispute. It is further contended that without any criminal proceedings pending against petitioner, the respondent authorities are taking coercive steps against him.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.8 lodged a complaint before the respondent authorities stating that the petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, however, when respondent No.8 asked to return the said amount, the petitioner, instead of returning the same, threatened respondent No.8, hence, she had filed the complaint dated 15.05.2026. On such complaint, a case in FIR No.400 of 2026 dated 15.05.2026 was registered under Sections 318(4), 74 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities would act strictly in accordance with law and would not interfere in any civil dispute, except to the extent warranted by law, in the event of any cognizable offence being brought to the notice of the police.

III. ANALYSIS:

7. The grievance of the petitioner essentially relates to alleged police interference in a dispute which is admittedly civil in nature. It is well settled that the police authorities cannot assume the role of adjudicators in civil disputes.

8. Equally well settled is the principle that, while the police are empowered to act in accordance with law upon receipt of information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, they cannot employ their authority to exert pressure upon parties in respect of disputes which are predominantly civil in nature.

9. The Supreme Court as well as this Court have repeatedly held that police authorities should refrain from interfering in purely civil disputes and that parties must be relegated to their remedies before the competent civil forum. Any enquiry by the police must necessarily be confined to matters within their statutory jurisdiction and conducted strictly in accordance with law.

10. In the present case, this Court is not required to adjudicate upon the merits of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.8