Abburi Hanumaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

ABBURI HANUMAIAH,, S/O. CHINNA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED 67 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS (PROPRIETOR, M/S. ABBURI INFRATECH), R/O. 1-33, GOVINDAPURAM VILLAGE, CHILAKALURIPET MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT - 522611.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 237.

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARASARAOPET - 522601.

¶14

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARASARAOPETA, PALNADU DISTRICT - 522601.

¶15

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHILAKALURIPET, PALNADU DISTRICT- 522616.

¶16

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHILAKALURIPET RURAL POLICE STATION, CHILAKALURIPET, PALNADU DISTRICT - 522616.

¶17

NALLAPATI PRASAD, S/O. NALLAPATI PARAYYA, R/O. POTHAVARAM VILLAGE,

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents, particularly respondents 4 and 5 at the instance of respondent No.6, in insisting the petitioner to yield/compromise the civil dispute relating to the Land Development Agreement dated 16.04.2025 and in not taking any action on petitioner's criminal complaint dated 13.02.2026, as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to interfere in any manner with his peaceful life and liberty nor insist him to yield to the terms of 6th respondent in civil disputes by initiating necessary action on petitioners criminal complaint and pass such

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.THARIGOPULA SURYA CHAITANYA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR HOME

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶29

“…may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents particularly respondents 4 and 5 at the instance of respondent No 6 in insisting the petitioner to yield/compromise the civil dispute relating to the Land Development Agreement dated 16 04 2025 and in not taking any action on petitioners criminal complaint dated 13 02 2026 as illegal arbitrary without authority of law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to interfere in any manner with his peaceful life and liberty nor insist him to yield to the terms of 6th respondent in civil disputes by initiating necessary action on petitioners criminal complaint and pass such…”

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

¶31

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent Nos.4 and 5, at the instance of Respondent No.6, have been insisting the Petitioner to compromise the civil dispute relating to the land development agreement dated 16.04.2025. It is further submitted that the respondent/ police are not taking any action on the complaint lodged by the Petitioner dated 13.02.2026.

¶32

Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that a P.G.R.S. (Public Grievance Redressal System) complaint was lodged by the Petitioner, and pursuant thereto, the respondent/ police conducted an enquiry. Upon such enquiry, it was noticed that there exists a civil dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.6. Since the matter is civil in nature, the respondent/ police did not interfere and advised the Petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. It is further submitted that Respondent No.6 has lodged a complaint against the Petitioner, which was registered as Crime No.42 of 2026 under Sections 318(4) and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at Chilakaluripet Rural Police Station, and the said case is under investigation.

¶33

It is not in dispute that a land development agreement dated 16.04.2025 was entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No.6, which gives rise to civil rights and liabilities between the parties. It is well settled that the police have no role, authority, or jurisdiction to interfere in purely civil disputes. Even, if any party approaches the police in respect of such disputes, the

¶34

police shall refrain from interference and relegate the parties to the competent Civil Court for appropriate reliefs in accordance with law.

¶35

It is needless to observe that, if the complaint of the Petitioner dated 13.02.2026 has not been registered on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature, the Petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for brevity, “Cr.P.C”) or under Sections 210 and 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “B.N.S.S.”), Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by way of filing a private complaint, if so advised. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate shall consider and dispose of such complaint in accordance with law.

¶36

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing Respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to interfere hencefort in the civil dispute relating to the land development agreement dated 16.04.2025 entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No.6, without following due process of law.

¶37

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶39

Date: 10.04.2026

¶40

JLSR

Abburi Hanumaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abburi Hanumaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Baji Shaheed Vs the State of Ap

Bangari Satyavani, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Dommaraju Rani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Shivamma @ Karakala Shivamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Irla Srinivasareddy Vs the State of Ap