A police station is not a civil court: AP High Court bars police from settling property fights, in seven writs

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Date of judgment: 29 September 2026
Case: WP 29546 of 2024 and 6 other writ petitions
Parties: Batch of 7 writ petitions v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Outcome: Disposed of

Summary

In seven writ petitions decided on 29 September 2026, people complained that police had pulled them into disputes over land, houses and money that belonged in civil courts. The High Court answered the question in one line: the police have no jurisdiction to decide the civil rights of parties against each other. A day later the same judge gave an almost identical ruling in a larger batch of 13 writs.

The question before the court

Do police have any authority to decide or settle the civil rights of private parties?

The court's decision

Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held that civil rights belong to civil courts and other forums created by law, and that the police cannot adjudicate them. The writs were disposed of with four directions: the police must not interfere with or settle civil rights without legal cause; they must strictly follow the Andhra Pradesh DGP's guidelines of 24 October 2025 (Communication No. 76/DGP's Peshi/2025); the parties may pursue their remedies in civil courts; and the police remain free to proceed if a cognizable offence is made out. No order as to costs.

Provisions referred to

Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Police Powers Civil Disputes Writ Petition Property Disputes

Related judgments

Telangana High Court ·30 Sep 2026 ·Criminal Procedure

Telangana HC: An accused cannot be called under a witness notice (Section 179 BNSS); notice set aside

The question: Can police use a Section 179 BNSS notice, meant for witnesses, against an accused?

A man named first accused in a Hyderabad police case said the police kept calling him to the station and pressing him to settle with the complainant. The High Court found that police had sent him a notice under Section 179 of the BNSS, which is meant for witnesses, although he is an accused, and set that notice aside.

Disposed of WP/32817/2026

AP High Court ·22 Sep 2026 ·Writ Petition

AP High Court: Habeas corpus does not lie once an arrested person is in custody or on bail; newspaper reports are not proof

The question: Is a writ of habeas corpus maintainable when the detenus are in custody under a judicial remand order that has not been challenged?

Relatives of five men said they were illegally held by forest officials from 5 February 2026 before being produced before the Special Court for red sanders cases at Tirupati on 10 February, and asked for their release and compensation. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition: the men were in custody under a magistrate's remand order and were later granted bail.

Dismissed WP/4318/2026

Telangana High Court ·15 Sep 2026 ·Service Law

Telangana HC: Removal of an insurance officer later honourably acquitted is excessive; reduced to compulsory retirement

The question: Is the penalty of removal from service proportionate where the officer was honourably acquitted in a criminal trial on substantially the same charges?

An officer of National Insurance Company Limited was dismissed in 2002 after a departmental inquiry into medical-claim settlements, and the appellate authority upheld the penalty in 2016. He was later tried on substantially the same allegations in a corruption case and honourably acquitted. The High Court held that removal from service, after about 24 years of service, was unduly harsh and disproportionate.

Allowed WP/46784/2016