Here is a structured digest of W.P. No. 23777/2026, citation: 2026:APHC:34330, decided on 20.08.2026 by the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Justice Sunitha Gandham):
Head Notes (with Para References, Citation: 2026:APHC:34330)
Police interference in civil disputes (Paras 1, 5–6, 2026:APHC:34330): Police have no jurisdiction to interfere in civil disputes between private parties unless a crime is registered or due process of law is invoked.
Mandamus jurisdiction under Article 226 (Paras 1, 5, 2026:APHC:34330): Writ of Mandamus can be issued to restrain police from interfering in civil disputes, as resolution of civil disputes lies within the judiciary.
Respondents’ stand (Para 3, 2026:APHC:34330): Government Pleader submitted that police are not interfering in civil disputes and will act only under due process of law.
Petitioner’s grievance (Paras 1–2, 2026:APHC:34330): Petitioner alleged harassment by police, being called to the station and pressured to settle civil disputes with private respondents.
Analysis of Facts and Law (2026:APHC:34330)
Facts (Paras 1–2): Petitioner alleged that police (Respondent No.4) called him to Proddatur Rural Police Station and threatened him to settle civil disputes with Respondents 5 and 6. Relief sought: declaration of such action as illegal and direction restraining police from interference.
Law (Paras 5–6):
Apex Court has repeatedly held that police cannot interfere in civil disputes.
Civil disputes must be resolved by judiciary, not police.
Police involvement in pending or potential civil disputes between citizens is unconstitutional unless due process of law is followed.
Judicial Reasoning (Paras 3–6):
Respondents assured non-interference except under due process.
Court reiterated settled law that police cannot interfere in civil disputes.
Mandamus issued restraining police from harassment and interference.
Conclusion (2026:APHC:34330)
Writ Petition disposed of with direction to Respondents 2–4 not to interfere in civil disputes between petitioner and Respondents 5 & 6, except under due process of law.
No order as to costs.
