Case at a Glance
Six petitioners from Visakhapatnam, Tirupati, ASR, NTR, Guntur and Prakasam districts alleged that the police were summoning them, pressing them to settle property, land or money disputes, or threatening them, even though civil suits or other proceedings were pending. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that “the duty to resolve civil disputes is entrusted to the judiciary” and that “the police have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon or determine the civil rights of parties inter se.” By a common order it directed the police not to interfere in or settle civil rights without legal cause and to follow the DGP’s circular of 24 October 2025 strictly, while leaving them free to act on any cognizable offence.
Each of the six petitioners complained that police officers had called them to the station, pressed them to settle property, land or money disputes, or threatened them, although civil proceedings or proceedings before other forums were already pending between the parties. Some petitions also concerned a loan dispute in which a criminal complaint was already pending before a Magistrate.
The State, through the Assistant Government Pleader, denied calling the petitioners and said the police would not interfere in civil disputes unless a cognizable offence was registered, relying on DGP Circular No. 76/DGP’s Peshi/2025 dated 24 October 2025 on land disputes, which says the police “do not play any role in deciding ownership or possession.” The private respondents justified police involvement on the ground of criminality, but did not dispute that civil suits were pending.
The Key Question Before the Court
Do the police have jurisdiction to interfere in or determine the civil rights of parties, particularly while their disputes are pending before civil courts or statutory forums?
Public Order Is the Police’s Job; Civil Rights Are the Courts’
Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held that while the police must maintain public order and prevent crime, deciding civil rights belongs to judicial or statutorily empowered forums, as “the duty to resolve civil disputes is entrusted to the judiciary.” Even an Executive Magistrate under Section 164 BNSS (corresponding to Section 145 CrPC) decides only actual possession, and that role shrinks once a civil court is seized of the matter. Relying on Mohd. Abid v. Ravi Naresh, Mohd Shakir v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 08 SC CK 0033 and Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court reiterated that Section 145/146 proceedings cannot run parallel to civil proceedings and that criminal process cannot be used to recover money in a civil dispute.
The Court also drew on Prakash Singh v. Union of India and earlier Andhra Pradesh decisions, J. Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma v. Commissioner of Police and G.B.C. Raj Gopal v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, holding that police cannot interfere in civil disputes without registering a crime. Noting that the DGP’s own guidelines confine the police to preventive action, it concluded that “the police have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon or determine the civil rights of parties inter se.”
What the Court Actually Held
- The police are directed not to interfere in, adjudicate, determine or settle the civil rights of the parties without legal cause.
- Police personnel must follow the DGP’s Communication No. 76/DGP’s Peshi/2025 dated 24 October 2025 stricto sensu.
- The parties are free to work out their remedies before the appropriate civil courts or competent forums.
- If any cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, the police may proceed in accordance with law; no costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects citizens from being pressured at police stations to compromise property, land or loan disputes pending in civil courts.
- It gives binding force, through a court direction, to the DGP’s circular limiting police to preventive action in land disputes.
- It preserves police power to act where a genuine cognizable offence is disclosed.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Citizens
- If police summon you to settle a pending civil dispute, you can cite this order and the DGP circular of 24 October 2025.
- Keep copies of pending suit papers to show the matter is before a civil court.
- Police may still act if a cognizable offence is genuinely made out.
For Counsel
- Rely on Mohd. Abid v. Ravi Naresh and Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh against criminal process used for civil recovery.
- Point out pending civil proceedings to show police overreach.
- Seek a direction for strict compliance with the DGP circular in writ petitions.
Key Takeaways
- Police cannot decide ownership, possession or money claims between private parties.
- Pending civil suits make police intervention in the dispute even more inappropriate.
- The DGP’s 24 October 2025 circular must be followed strictly.
- Cognizable offences can still be investigated in accordance with law.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the police in Andhra Pradesh settle a land or money dispute?
No. The High Court held the police have no jurisdiction to adjudicate or determine civil rights between parties and directed them not to interfere without legal cause.
What is the DGP circular mentioned in the order?
Communication No. 76/DGP’s Peshi/2025 dated 24 October 2025 on land disputes, which confines police to preventive action and says they do not decide ownership or possession.
Does this stop the police from registering cases?
No. The Court clarified that if a cognizable offence is made out, the police may proceed in accordance with law.
Conclusion
The common order draws a clear institutional line: the police keep the peace and investigate crime, while ownership, possession and money claims belong in civil courts and competent forums.
Practical takeaway: Parties to civil disputes in Andhra Pradesh facing police pressure to settle can invoke this order and the DGP circular; genuine criminal allegations must be pursued through a registered case, not station-level settlements.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com