Foreigners Act | Unauthorised Alteration Of Sworn Affidavit Renders It 'No Evidence', Aadhaar Card Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Section 307 IPC | Act Of Leaving Spot, Procuring A Weapon And Returning Indicates Clear Intent To Commit Murder: Delhi High Court Manufactured Products Like Rice Bran Oil And De-Oiled Rice Bran Cannot Be Categorized As ‘Agricultural Produce’ Under The West Bengal Act Of 1972: Calcutta High Court Challenge To Initial Remand Order For Violation Of Article 22(1) Constitution Of India Not Maintainable After Cognizance Is Taken: Allahabad High Court Caste Validity | Scrutiny Committee Cannot Disregard Pre-Independence Record Alleging Interpolation Without Expert Opinion: Bombay High Court Waqf Board Cannot Include Property In Prohibited List Under Section 22-A Registration Act If Civil Court Has Already Declared It Is Not Waqf Property: Andhra Pradesh High Court Husband Bound To Explain Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home; 'Soon Before' Requires Proximity, Not Immediate Demand: Allahabad High Court Housing Society Cannot Deny Membership To Occupier Of Sanctioned Basement Area While Admitting Occupiers Of Unauthorized Upper Floors: Bombay High Court Domestic Enquiry Findings Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities Cannot Be Interfered With Merely Due To Non-Examination Of Complainant Borrowers: Telangana High Court Section 37 NDPS Embargo Inapplicable If Entire Cannabis Plant Weighed Without Separating Flowering Tops: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail SC/ST Act | Mere Knowledge Of Victim's Caste Identity Sufficient To Frame Charge Under Section 3(1)(w), No Need To Prove Act Was Committed 'Solely' Due To Caste: Delhi High Court Dying Declaration Cannot Form Sole Basis Of Conviction If Inconsistent With Medical Evidence & Surrounding Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Consumer Commission Cannot Mechanically Dismiss Appeal For Delay Without Evaluating Specific Institutional Explanation: Orissa High Court Medical Negligence | Failure To Investigate Known 'Red-Flag' Findings In Diagnostic Reports Constitutes Breach Of Duty Of Care: NCDRC Section 54 TP Act | Title By Delivery Of Possession For Property Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Sale Deed Is Unregistered: Madhya Pradesh High Court Luring Women Through 'Romance Fraud' To Extort Sexual Acts Is Rape By Deception: Madras High Court Upholds Life Conviction Of 'Suji @ Kasi' Kerala Service Rules | Liability Of Retired Employee Must Be Quantified And Intimated Within Three Years Of Retirement: High Court Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Used As A Tool For Recovery Of Loan Where No Dishonest Intention Is Prima Facie Disclosed: Karnataka High Court Accused Cannot Take Advantage Of Prosecution's Laxity, Appellate Court Can Summon Doctor To Prove MLR: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation Act | Doctrine Of Merger Inapplicable To Arbitral Awards; 12-Year Execution Period Runs From Date Award Becomes Enforceable: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court

01 October 2026 6:21 AM

By: sayum


"In the scheme of Constitution of India, duty to resolve civil dispute is entrusted to judiciary and police have no such power and involvement of police in a pending civil dispute or potential civil dispute between two citizens or two groups of citizens is not within the provisions of the police." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a ruling dated September 23, 2026, held that the police lack the jurisdiction to interfere in matters that are purely civil in nature, particularly when those disputes are already sub-judice.

A bench of Smt. Justice Sunitha Gandham emphasized that police machinery cannot be utilized to compel parties to settle civil litigation or vacate property.

Police Authority Restricted to Criminal Law

The matter originated from a Writ Petition filed by one Vadde Ambi, who alleged that local police officials were repeatedly summoning him to the station and threatening him to withdraw a pending civil suit, O.S. No. 121 of 2019, concerning a land dispute in Kurnool District. The petitioner contended that such high-handed conduct by the Station House Officer violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Core Legal Questions

The primary issue before the Court was whether the police can exert pressure on parties to a civil suit to settle or abandon their legal claims. Additionally, the Court examined the extent of police authority in matters where a concurrent criminal complaint exists alongside a pending civil dispute, and whether such intervention amounts to an overreach of the police's statutory role.

No Role for Police in Civil Adjudication

The Court observed that it is a well-settled principle of law that the police have no mandate to adjudicate or interfere in civil disputes. The Court clarified that the Constitution of India entrusts the resolution of such conflicts exclusively to the judiciary, and any attempt by the police to act as arbiters in private property disputes is legally impermissible.

Limitation on Interference

The Court underscored that police interference in a pending or potential civil dispute between citizens is not sanctioned by any provision of law. The bench held that where a dispute is purely civil, the police must refrain from deploying their machinery to influence the outcome of pending litigation or to pressure parties into compliance regarding land possession or cultivation.

"The duty to resolve civil dispute is entrusted to the judiciary and police have no such power."

Police Undertaking and Court Direction

During the proceedings, the Assistant Government Pleader submitted an instruction stating that the police would not interfere in the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and the defendants. Recording this undertaking, the Court disposed of the petition with a clear directive to the authorities.

Strict Adherence to Law

The Court explicitly directed the respondents not to interfere in the ongoing civil disputes or compel the petitioner to settle matters through police station summons. However, the Court provided a safeguard, noting that this order does not prevent the police from taking action strictly in accordance with law if criminal activities occur and the facts and circumstances warrant such legal intervention.

Date of Decision: 23 September 2026

 

 

Latest Legal News