Disposed

Kucharlapati Sasanka Varma v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026WP/10396/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held police cannot use jurisdiction to settle or enforce civil disputes. Writ petition disposed of directing respondents not to interfere with pending civil litigation between petitioner and Respondent No.7.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.7.

Kucharlapati Sasanka Varma Vs the State of Ap — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3604]

¶2

Date of reserved for orders :

¶3

Date of pronouncement : 15-09-2026 Date of uploading : 15-09-2026

¶4

APHC010197262023

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶6

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO: 10396/2023

¶11

Between:

¶12

KUCHARLAPATI SASANKA VARMA, HAVING ITS ADMIN OFFICE AT FLAT NO.502, DWARAKAMAI TOWERS, VIJAY NAGAR COLONY, RAM NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR DESAI MADAN MOHAN REDDY.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPTANAM.

¶17

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶18

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GUDIVADA I TOWN CIRCLE, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶19

THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, GUDIVADA 1 TOWN POLICE STATION, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶20

SRI GOVINDA RAJULU CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GUDIVADA I TOWN CIRCLE, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶21

¶22

SUN, J WP_10396_2023

¶23

KILARI MURALI MOHAN, S/O. K. NAGARAJU, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-64, ADITYA NAGAR, 1ST LANE, OPP. SAI BABA TEMPLE, SIVA REDDY PALEM ROAD, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

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 a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Police Authorities in interfering with the petitioner's peaceful life and enjoyment and harassing and confining the petitioner and his family members in the police station by saying that they will foist false cases against them and threatening to vacate from the Petitioner's residential RCC building bearing D.No. 11-249-1 to an extent of 329 square yards in R.S.No.250/ 1 A, Municipal Revenue Ward No. 11, Valivarthipadu, Ambedkar Nagar, Gudivada, Krishna District as illegal and unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful life's and enjoyment by any manner and pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶27

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 respondents not to harass the petitioner and not to interfere with the peaceful life and enjoyment of the petitioner and his residential RCC building bearing D.No. 11-249-1 to an extent of 329 square yards in R.S.No.250/ 1 A, Municipal Revenue Ward No. 11, Valivarthipadu, Ambedkar Nagar, Gudivada, Krishna District without following due process of law and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶29

1.RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.GP FOR HOME

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

¶34

SUN, J WP_10396_2023

¶35

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

¶36

WRIT PETITION No. 10396 OF 2023

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

This writ petition is filed to direct the respondents not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.6 including the interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner with regard to their property bearing D.No.11-249-1 to an extent of 329 Sq.yds in R.S. No.250/1 A, Municipal Revenue Ward No.11, Valivarthipadu, Ambedkar Nagar, Gudivada, Krishna District.

¶39

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is a joint owner of the subject property. According to the petitioner, the property is ancestral in nature and, during the lifetime of his grandfather, his father and grandfather partitioned the family properties under a registered document dated 02.11.1981, pursuant to which the subject property fell to the share of his father. It is further stated that his father constructed a two-storied building on the property out of the income of the joint family properties. According to the petitioner, disputes subsequently arose between the parties, resulting in the institution of O.S.No.36 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada. Proceedings were also initiated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by the State Bank of India in respect of certain loan amounts. A criminal case was also registered in Crime No.84 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C

¶40

It is further alleged that respondent No.4 repeatedly called the petitioner to the police station, though he was not involved in any crime, and that the police also visited his residence. The petitioner alleges that respondent No.4 confined him and his father at the police station for several hours and threatened them to vacate the house and withdraw the proceedings pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Civil Court. It is also

¶41

¶42

SUN, J WP_10396_2023

¶43

alleged that the police threatened to implicate the petitioner in a false case and that, despite a report dated 15.04.2023 submitted by him, the alleged harassment continued.

¶44

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home placed on record the written instructions issued by the Station House Officer, Gudivada I Town Police Station, Krishna District. It is stated therein that, based on a report lodged by respondent No.7, a case in Crime No.90 of 2023 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 453 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined witnesses and visited the scene of offence. It is also stated that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation. The police specifically denied having sent constables to the petitioner’s house for the purpose of harassing him or having threatened him.

¶45

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondent police to act strictly in accordance with law and not to interfere with the civil disputes between the parties.

¶47

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that, except for the lawful investigation in Crime No.90 of 2023, the respondent police have neither harassed the petitioner nor threatened him to withdraw the cases instituted by him.

¶48

Admittedly, there are disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.7 concerning the subject property, and proceedings in respect of such disputes are pending before the competent Civil Court. The nature and extent of the respective rights of the parties in the property are matters

¶49

¶50

SUN, J WP_10396_2023

¶51

falling within the jurisdiction of the competent civil forum. The police authorities cannot assume the role of a civil court or use their powers to settle or enforce a civil dispute between private parties.

¶52

At the same time, the pendency of a civil dispute does not, by itself, bar the police from registering or investigating a cognizable offence when the allegations disclose the commission of such an offence. In the present case, the respondent police have specifically stated that Crime No.90 of 2023 was registered on the basis of the report lodged by respondent No.7 and that investigation is being conducted in accordance with law. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the police so as to prevent them from carrying out a lawful investigation. However, such investigation shall be confined to the alleged criminal offences and shall not be permitted to be converted into a means of settling the underlying civil dispute or interfering with the petitioner’s rights in the property otherwise than in accordance with law.

¶53

In view of the above circumstances, and particularly having regard to the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the respondent police will not interfere in the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and respondent No.7, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the respondents not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.7, except in accordance with law. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondent police from registering or investigating any cognizable offence in accordance with law, subject to adherence to the procedure prescribed by law.

¶54

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

¶56

SUN, J WP_10396_2023

¶57

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶58

stand closed.

¶59

________________________

¶60

SUNITHA GANDHAM, J

¶61

15.09.2026 knl

Kucharlapati Sasanka Varma v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kucharlapati Sasanka Varma v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases