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.

advocatemmmohan

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.