Disposed

Kammula Bulli Venkaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026WP/92/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a writ petition coining the Single Judge restrained respondents from using police machinery to compel a private party to settle a civil money dispute, while preserving the police right to act if a cognizable offence is subsequently disclosed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 not to interfere with civil disputes or use police machinery to compel the petitioner to settle such disputes.

Kammula Bulli Venkaiah Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

SUN, J W.P.No.92 of 2023

¶3

APHC010000942023

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

[3604]

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO: 92/2023

¶11

Between:

¶12

KAMMULA BULLI VENKAIAH, S/O VEERA VENKAIAH, AGED 58, R/O D.NO. 5-2-8K S, KOTASETTAMMA THALLI TEMPLE, KONDAPPA VEEDHI, PITHAPURAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA.

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GOLLAPALEM POLICE STATION, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

¶18

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GOLLAPALEM POLICE

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 topleased to issue a Writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents in orally summoning the petitioner to attend the police station without issuance of any notice and without registration of a crime as illegal, highhanded, arbitrary, against Law and unjust and consequently direct the respondentsnot to call or summon the petitioner to the police station and pass

¶21

¶22

SUN, J W.P.No.92 of 2023

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

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 summon the petitioner to the police station and pass such further order or other orders as this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.P VIVEK

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR HOME

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

¶31

SUN, J W.P.No.92 of 2023

¶32

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

¶33

WRIT PETITION No: 92 OF 2023

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents not to call or harass the petitioner to attend to the police station.

¶36

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondent police have been calling him to the police station without registering any crime. According to the petitioner, on 30.12.2022, respondent No.4, the Sub-Inspector of Police, called him over the phone at about 10:47 a.m. and, during the conversation, stated that he had taken an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from one P. Ganga Bhavani and directed him to come to the police station on 02.01.2023 to settle the matter. The petitioner states that, though he informed respondent No.4 that he had no acquaintance with the said P. Ganga Bhavani, he was insisted upon to come to the police station and settle the matter, failing which a criminal case would be registered against him. The petitioner further states that no crime has been registered against him and that the police cannot pressurise him to settle what is essentially a civil dispute.

¶37

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home filed written instructions stating that the said P. Ganga Bhavani submitted a complaint through Spandana vide Complaint No.2434/2022, dated 26.12.2022, to respondent No.2, which was referred to respondent No.3 for necessary action. It is stated that, while conducting an enquiry into the complaint, respondent No.3 called both parties to the police station on 30.12.2022. The petitioner did not appear for the enquiry and, therefore, the said P. Ganga Bhavani was advised to take appropriate legal steps, as the dispute related to money transactions between the parties. The written instructions further state that respondent No.3 did not otherwise call the petitioner to the police station, except for the purpose of conducting the enquiry on 30.12.2022.

¶38

¶39

SUN, J W.P.No.92 of 2023

¶40

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

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Writ Petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent police not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and the said P. Ganga Bhavani.

¶42

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that, except on the basis of the report submitted by the said P. Ganga Bhavani, the respondent police have neither called the petitioner nor threatened him with implication in any criminal case.

¶43

Admittedly, no crime has been registered against the petitioner. It is also the specific case of the respondent police that the dispute between the petitioner and P. Ganga Bhavani relates to money transactions and is civil in nature. It is well settled that the police cannot assume the role of a civil court or interfere with a purely civil dispute between private parties. Where a dispute is purely civil in nature and no criminal offence is registered, the police cannot employ their authority to compel a party to settle the dispute or to recover money on behalf of one private individual from another.

¶44

At the same time, the mere existence of a civil dispute does not, by itself, prevent the police from conducting a lawful enquiry into information disclosing a cognizable offence. However, such enquiry cannot be converted into a means of pressurising a person to settle a civil or monetary dispute. In the present case, the written instructions of the respondents themselves indicate that the complaint concerned money transactions between the petitioner and P. Ganga Bhavani and that the latter was advised to take appropriate legal steps. No crime is stated to have been registered against the petitioner.

¶45

¶46

SUN, J W.P.No.92 of 2023

¶47

In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought by the petitioner deserves to be moulded appropriately. The respondents cannot interfere with or compel settlement of the civil dispute between the petitioner and P. Ganga Bhavani by resorting to police machinery. However, this order shall not preclude the competent police authority from taking action in accordance with law if any information subsequently discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

¶48

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to interfere with the civil disputes, if any, pending between the petitioner and P. Ganga Bhavani, or to use police machinery for compelling the petitioner to settle such disputes. It is made clear that this order shall not prevent the respondents from taking any action strictly in accordance with law if the facts and circumstances warrant such action. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

________________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J

¶51

15.09.2026

¶52

Vns

Kammula Bulli Venkaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kammula Bulli Venkaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases