Pulivarthy Kartheek vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the respondent police have no right to interfere in civil disputes. The existence of a pending civil suit (O.S.No.549 of 2020) and a granted temporary injunction (I.A.No.214 of 2020) clearly demarcates the matter as a civil dispute. The Court referenced previous judgments and guidelines from the Ministry of Home Affairs, emphasizing that when a dispute is purely civil in nature and no crime is registered, the police lack jurisdiction to intervene. The Court directed the respondent police to strictly follow the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and not to interfere with civil disputes. However, the Court clarified that this order would not preclude the police from taking action if any crime for a cognizable offence is registered against the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both counsel.

Facts

The petitioner, engaged in a retail milk and milk products business under the name "Triveni Enterprises" in tenanted premises, filed a writ petition challenging the action of the 3rd respondent (police) in summoning him to the police station at the instance of the 4th respondent (landlord). The dispute arose when the landlord demanded an unreasonable rent increase, which the petitioner refused. Consequently, the landlord allegedly attempted to evict the petitioner through illegal means. The petitioner filed a civil suit (O.S.No.549 of 2020) seeking a permanent injunction, and a temporary injunction was granted by the civil court. The landlord then filed a complaint with the police, leading to the petitioner being called to the police station and allegedly threatened.

Key Issues

1. Whether the police (3rd respondent) have the jurisdiction to interfere in a purely civil dispute between a tenant (petitioner) and a landlord (4th respondent), especially when a civil suit and temporary injunction are pending, and whether such interference violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The police have no right to interfere in civil disputes. Their actions in summoning the petitioner and threatening him are illegal, arbitrary, and violative of his fundamental rights, as the matter is sub judice before a civil court. The petitioner relies on established legal principles that police jurisdiction is limited to cognizable offences and not civil matters. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Government Pleader for Home conceded that the respondent police will not interfere with civil disputes unless a crime is registered for a cognizable offence. This implies an acknowledgment that police interference in civil matters is generally unwarranted.