ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a) declaration of the actions of Respondent No.3 in interfering with the Petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Subject Property and in compelling the Petitioner to settle alleged inter-se civil disputes with Respondent No.4 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India; b) Consequently, direct Respondent No.3 and all officers subordinate thereto not to interfere with the Petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Subject Property except in accordance with due process of law; c) direct Respondent No 3 to confine any investigation in the FIR strictly to the allegations contained therein and not to involve itself in adjudicating or enforcing civil claims relating to the Subject Property; d) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

I. FACTS IN BRIEF:

2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-14 gts in Sy. No.100A1/AA/1 situated at Inamguda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Malkajgiri District (subject property), having acquired the same through his father and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. In order to protect the subject property from encroachment and unlawful interference, he erected a compound wall. While so, respondent No.4, who was attempting to interfere with the petitioner's possession, lodged a false complaint before respondent No.3 alleging trespass into his land. Based on the said complaint, FIR No.446 of 2026, dated 26.05.2026 was registered and a notice under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was issued to the petitioner on 04.06.2026.

3. Aggrieved by the alleged interference of respondent No.3 in relation to the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4, the present writ petition has been filed.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES:

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 is purely civil in nature relating to title and possession of the subject property. The allegations made in the FIR are all false, frivolous, and intended to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute. Respondent No.3, instead of conducting a fair investigation, is allegedly acting at the instance of respondent No.4 and pressurizing the petitioner to settle the civil dispute.

5. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.3 has no authority to compel the parties to compromise or settle the civil disputes relating to ownership or possession of immovable property and that the action of respondent No.3 amounts to abuse of police power and unlawful interference in a civil dispute.

6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Home submits that respondent No.3 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 the subject matter of pending civil proceedings. It is well settled that the police authorities cannot assume the role of adjudicators in civil disputes nor can they compel the parties concerned to arrive at a settlement in matters which fall within the domain of civil courts.

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 enforce their authority to exert pressure upon the parties in respect of disputes which are predominantly civil in nature.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in catena of decisions have repeatedly held that the police