POLICE INTERFERENCE IN CIVIL MATTER = it is crystal clear that the respondents, on the complaint of the petitioner, registered Crime No.181 of 2020 which they are obligated to investigate in accordance with law. Except that, they have no business to either persuade or force the petitioner to enter into the settlement with his builder B. Bhujangarao in the civil disputes that are pending between them. Running the risk of pleonasm, it must be stated that settlement of civil disputes is not the cup of tea of the Police.

POLICE INTERFERENCE IN CIVIL MATTER = it is crystal clear that the respondents, on the complaint of the petitioner, registered Crime No.181 of 2020 which they are obligated to investigate in accordance with law. Except that, they have no business to either persuade or force the petitioner to enter into the settlement with his builder B. Bhujangarao in the civil disputes that are pending between them. Running the risk of pleonasm, it must be stated that settlement of civil disputes is not the cup of tea of the Police.

AP HIGH COURT

Main Number

WP 13227/2020

SR Number

WPSR 16484/2020

Petitioner

T. Chinnaswamy

Respondent

The State of Andhra Pradesh

Petitioner Advocate

JADA SRAVAN KUMAR

Respondent Advocate

GP FOR HOME

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

WRIT PETITION No.13227 OF 2020

ORDER:

The petitioner prays for writ of Mandamus declaring the action

of 3rd and 4th respondents in their unauthorized interference over the

construction of the petitioner’s building in Plot No.26, 9, 10 Mourya

Nagar, Kalyanadurgam Road, Ananthapuram District as illegal,

arbitrary, violative and for a consequential direction restraining them

from interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and his

builder B. Bhujangarao, Managing Partner.

  1. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus. The petitioner is a

retired Principal and after his retirement he proposed to construct a

building at his native place and for this purpose he engaged services

of B. Bhujangarao, the Managing Partner and Consulting Engineer,

O/o. Lakshmi Constructions, Ananthapuram for construction of a

house and both of them entered into an agreement of construction

wherein specific time was stipulated for completion of construction.

(a) It is his further case that in spite of lapse of the stipulated

time, the builder intentionally delayed the completion of house

construction on one or other pretext. In the meanwhile, the petitioner

paid the total amount as agreed, but however, the builder with an

ulterior motive demanded more money and started creating troubles.

He also created obstructions in completion of the construction. On

26.06.2020 the builder and his wife came along with their henchmen

and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and abused him

in filthy language in touching his caste.

2

(b) Aggrieved, the petitioner lodged a report with the 3rd

respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police and the same is

registered as Crime No.181 of 2020 dated 04.06.2020 on the file of

Ananthapuram Police Station for the offences under Sections 420, 506

of IPC and Secs.3(1) (s), 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA), 1989. Except

registering the FIR, the Police have not advanced the investigation.

Even after the registration of FIR, the accused used to threaten him

with dire consequences. Added to it, to his dismay 3rd and

4

th respondents instead of proceedings with the investigation in

respect of his complaint, often visiting the construction site and

openly warning the petitioner that unless he settles the case with the

builder he shall not commence the construction works.

Hence, the writ petition.

  1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned

Asst. Government Pleader for Home representing respondent Nos.1

to 4 and later denied the writ petition allegations and argued that the

respondent Police have not forced the petitioner to settle his civil

disputes with his builder.

  1. As can be seen from the facts, it is crystal clear that the

respondents, on the complaint of the petitioner, registered Crime

No.181 of 2020 which they are obligated to investigate in accordance

with law. Except that, they have no business to either persuade or

force the petitioner to enter into the settlement with his builder

B. Bhujangarao in the civil disputes that are pending between them.

3

Running the risk of pleonasm, it must be stated that settlement of civil

disputes is not the cup of tea of the Police.

  1. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a

direction to the respondents to proceed with the investigation in

respect of the Crime No.181 of 2020 in accordance with law

expeditiously and at the same time without applying persuasion or

coercion to the petitioner to settle his civil disputes with his builder or

others. No costs.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications, if any pending for

consideration, shall stand closed.


U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

24.08.2020

MS