Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/23777/2026 of DONTHU NARESH Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 19 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] THURSDAY, THE 20th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM WRIT PETITION NO: 23777/2026 Between: 1. DONTHU NARESH, S/O. DONTHU RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 12/5, VIRAT
APHC010433202026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 20th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 23777/2026
Between:
1. DONTHU NARESH, S/O. DONTHU RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 12/5, VIRAT NAGAR, GOPAVARAM
VILLAGE, PRODDATUR MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT -
516361.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 522237.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA-GUNTUR
HIGHWAY, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522503.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KADAPA, Y.S.R. KADAPA
DISTRICT 516001.
4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PRODDATUR RURAL POLICE
STATION, PRODDATUR RURAL CIRCLE OFFICE, Y.S.R. KADAPA
DISTRICT 516360.
5. POLAKALA GURIVI REDDY, S/O. P. SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, D. NO. 7/477-6-1, BHAGYA NAGARA COLONY, KADAPA
TOWN AND CITY, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT 516002.
6. VENNAPUSA CHANDRA KALADHAR REDDY, S/O. KESHAVA
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, D. NO. 15/191, GOVT. HOSPITAL
ROAD, OPP NAGARJUNA PUBLIC SCHOOL, RENIGUNTA TOWN,
SUN, J
W.P.No.23777 of 2026
TIRUPATHI DISTRICT 517520.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or a direction or a writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 4 in calling the petitioner to Proddatur Rural P.S. and threatening him to settle the civil disputes with the unofficial respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and to consequently direct the Respondent No. 4 not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and not to call the petitioner to police station and not to harass him, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 4 not to call the petitioner to Proddatur Rural P.S.
and not to pressurize the petitioner to settle the civil disputes with the unofficial respondent Nos. 5 and 6,pending disposal of the main writ petition, and to pass s Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. DASAM DURGA SHIVA SAI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following:
SUN, J
W.P.No.23777 of 2026
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM
WRIT PETITION No: 23777 OF 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in calling the petitioner to Proddatur Rural Police Station and threatening him to settle the civil disputes with the respondent Nos.5 & 6 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently, direct the respondent No.4 not to interfere with the civil disputes.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents, submitted that the respondents are not interfering in the civil disputes between the parties and in this matter also, they would not interfere except under due process of law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that recording the same, the petition may be disposed of.
5. In this regard, it is to be mentioned that it is well settled that police cannot interfere in civil disputes and the Hon’ble Apex Court repeatedly held that when the dispute is purely of civil nature, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised and further, when the dispute between two citizens is of civil nature and no crime is registered, police have no jurisdiction to interfere in the civil dispute. It is also settled that 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.
SUN, J W.P.No.23777 of 2026
6. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.5 & 6, except under due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J
20.08.2026 Vns