1. The four writ petitions are filed by different persons of different places against the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Sub-Inspectors of Police and Station House Officers, III Town Police Station and IV Town Police Station, Kurnool. The main complaint in the writ petitions is that the petitioners are against the alleged interference by the police in civil disputes. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader was directed to file counter-affidavits duly sworn to by the Superintendent of Police. Accordingly counter-affidavits have been filed by the Head of the District Police. The matters were heard together and are disposed of by common order.
2. The allegations and averments in the affidavits may be noticed briefly. In W.P. No. 19056 of 2001, the petitioner is a businessman dealing in vegetable seeds. The second petitioner is an Advocate at Kurnool. It is alleged that the son of the first petitioner married S. Sameena Afroze in the year 1995. On 22-3-2001, the second son, Ahmed Hussain died due to heart attack. Disputes started over sharing the money of late Ahrned Hussain, which was deposited in S. B. Accounts and by way of Fixed deposits. It is alleged that the daughter-in-law influenced the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool and Sub-Inspector of Police, SP Office, Kurnool and summoned the petitioners to the Office of the Superintendent of Police and tried to force a compromise between her and the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in interfering with civil disputes is illegal and unconstitutional.
3. In W.P. No. 23792 of 2001, the case of the petitioner is that he had purchased paddy worth Rs. 2,15,000/- from the father of the 4th respondent and executed two promissory notes for Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,15,000/- in his favour and that he had paid the entire amount to the father of the 4th respondent. But, only one promissory note relating to Rs. 1,00,000/- was returned and the other was not returned. The father of the 4th respondent approached the 1st respondent for his help, and the 3rd respondent under the directions of the 1st respondent is pressurising the petitioner by sending Constables for payment of the said amount to the father of the 4th respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in harassing the petitioner by interfering with the civil disputes and false claims made by respondent No. 1 and in the process forcing the petitioner to visit the police station, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with his freedom of life and liberty.
4. In W. P. No. 3650 of 2002, the petitioner states that he borrowed the amounts of Rs. 23000/- and Rs. 20000/- from the 4th respondent on 18-5-1996 for agricultural purpose and executed two promissory notes for the said amount. Later on 11-3-1999, renewal of the said promissory notes was made. While so, at the instance of the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent called the petitioner to his office and threatened him with dire consequences if repayment is not made to the 4th respondent. He states that he was illegally detained for 3 days from 20-12-2001 to 22-12-2001 in III Town Police Station, Kurnool and that he was released after 3 days by cautioning that he should repay the amount within 3 months. Hence, questioning the said interference by the police in the petitioner's agricultural activities, the writ petition has been filed.
5. W. P. 5430 of 2002 has also been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in calling the petitioner to appear before them through the local police under the guise of Police Darbar as illegal and violative of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere in the personal liberty of the petitioner herein by calling him to the Police Station to resolve the civil dispute without following due process of law.
6. In all the matters, initially the Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police filed counter-affidavits. In view of the counter-affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, the counters filed earlier need not be referred to. The Superintendent of Police, in the counter-affidavit, categorically denied the allegations made by the petitioners that police are running a Police Darbar. It is also further stated that the police are not interfering in any of the civil disputes and that as and when a complaint is made by an aggrieved person, which has all the trappings of a civil dispute, the police are only advising the parties to resolve the dispute in Civil Courts. It is, however, not denied that whenever a complaint is made by a citizen seeking redressal, the police are enquiring so as to avoid further clashes and prevent law and order problem.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, M/s. K.G. Krishna Murthy, C. Prakash Reddy, A. Jayashankar Reddy and J.U.M.V. Prasad, submit that in spite of settled position of law that police should not interfere in the civil disputes, more often than not, in the guise of enquiring into a complaint and in the guise of preventing the perceived law and order problem, the police are detaining the people in the police station and also forcing them to enter into compromise. In an effort to justify the statement made in the counter-affidavit that police are only enquiring into complaint to prevent further clashes, the learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance on Section 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short
"Cr. P.C.").
8. A short question that requires consideration is whether the police are entitled to "look into" any complaint made by any citizen against a citizen or citizens in relation to a civil dispute on the premise that there is likelihood of further clashes, which may result in law and other problem.
9. Chapter XI of "Cr. P.C." contains provisions dealing with preventive action of the police. Section 149 lays down that every police officer may interpose for the purpose of preventing, and shall, prevent the commission of any cognizable offence. Section 150 requires every police officer as in duty bound to inform about any information regarding a design to commit cognizable offence to the officer to whom he is subordinate and under Section 151, may even arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without warrant, a person so designing to commit a cognizable offence. Further, under Sub-section (2), a person who is arrested in relation to a situation under Sub-section (1) of Section 151 shall not be detained exceeding 24 hours from the time of his arrest unless the detention of such person is required or authorised under any other provisions of this Code.
10. In this context, reference may also be made to the relevant provisions in Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli (for short "the Hyderabad Act"), Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Police Act, 1859 ("the Andhra Act" for brevity) and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) District Police Act, 1329 Fasli ("the Telangana Act").
11. All powers not inconsistent with the provisions of the Andhra Act, which up to the passing of the said Act belonged by law to the existing police authorities shall be vested in the police authorities under the Andhra Act. That is the purport of Section 6 of the said Act. Further Section 21 thereof lays down the duties of police officers, which reads as under :
"21. Duties of Police Officers :-- Every Police Officer shall, for all purposes in this Act contained, be considered to be always on duty and shall have the powers of a Police Officer in every part of the General Police District. It shall be his duty to use his best endeavours and ability to prevent all crimes, offences and public nuisances, to preserve the peace: to apprehend disorderly and suspicious characters; to detect and bring offenders to justice, to collect and communicate intelligence affecting the public peace; and promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him."
12. Similar provisions were made in the Telangana Act also by reason of Section 19 of the said Act. But, Section 16 of the Telangana Act postulates that police officers enrolled under the Telangana Act shall not have any other power except powers conferred by the Telangana Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
13. Hyderabad City Police Act is a consolidating law relating to Hyderabad City made with an objective of providing effective means for prevention and detection of crimes, maintenance of peace and investigation into crimes. Section 29 enumerates the duties of police officers. Clause (b) of Section 29 requires every police officer to obtain intelligence concerning the commission of cognizable offences or design to commit such offences and bring such information to the notice of superior officers and to take such action consistent with law and with orders of his superior. This provision is in pari materia with Section 151, "Cr. P.C." It is not necessary to refer to various other duties under the Hyderabad Act. but it is suffice to notice that all the duties are meant to maintain peace and public order and prevent commission of offences.
14. The various provisions to which a brief reference is made would show that the power of the police to collect intelligence regarding any design to commit cognizable offences and prevent commission of cognizable offences is considered to be the inherent power of the police organization. Whether or not there is a special enactment, the police are expected to perform its functions; namely, maintenance of peace and public order and prevention of cognizable offences. When all these statutes dealing with police in Andhra Pradesh deal with duty of the police relating to cognizable offences, a Police Officer would not be justified in saying that he/she is looking into a complaint made by a person which has, ex facie, trappings of the civil dispute. Indeed, under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of "Cr. P.C.", it shall be within the power and duty of the police officer to register only a cognizable offence. Though under Section 155 of "Cr. P.C." a police officer can make an entry in the appropriate register about the information as to non-cognizable offence, such police officer shall not investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate. As a necessary corollary, it must be concluded that any effort on the part of the police 'to look into' any complaint by any person which does not contain allegations of commission of cognizable offences would not only violate the various provisions of the Andhra Act, as in this case, but also would violate Section 155(2) of the "Cr. P.C." Any such action would be ex facie illegal, whatever be the ipse dixit of the police. There is no presumption in law that every rift in human relations would lead to a civil dispute and civil dispute would likely to result in clashes, resulting in offences against human body. Any such effort on the part of the police to look into the complaints regarding civil disputes is not even the part of the Code of Conduct of the Police, which was communicated by the Government of India in 1987 which reads as under :
Code of Conduct for the Police in India
1. The Police must bear faithful allegiance to the Constitution of India and respect and uphold the rights of the citizens as guaranteed by it.
2. The Police should not question the propriety or necessity of any law duly enacted. They should enforce the law firmly and impartially, without fear or favour, malice or vindictiveness.
3. The Police should recognize and respect the limitations of their powers and functions. They should not usurp or even seem to usurp the functions of the judiciary and sit in judgment on cases to avenge individuals and punish the guilty.
4. In securing the observance of law or in maintaining order, the Police should as far as practicable, use the methods of persuasion, advice and warning. When the application of force becomes inevitable, only the irreducible minimum of force required in the circumstances should be used.
5. The prime duty of the Police is to prevent crime and disorder and the Police must recognize that the test of their efficiency is the absence of both and not the visible evidence of Police action in dealing with them.
6. The Police must recognize that they are members of the public, with the only difference that in the interest of the society and on its behalf they are employed to give full time attention to duties, which are normally incumbent on every citizen to perform.
7. The Police should realize that the efficient performance of their duties will be dependent on the extent of real co-operation that they receive from the public. This, in turn, will depend on their ability to secure public approval of their conduct and actions and to earn and retain public respect and confidence.
8. The Police should always keep the welfare of the people in mind and be sympathetic and considerate towards them. They should always be ready to offer individual service and friendship and render necessary assistance to all without regard to their wealth or social standing.
9. The Police should always place duty before self, should remain calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule and should be ready to sacrifice their lives in protecting those of others.
10. The Police should always be courteous and well mannered; they should be dependable and impartial; they should possess dignity and courage; and should cultivate character and the trust of the people.
11. Integrity of the highest order is the fundamental basis of the prestige of the Police Recognizing this, the Police must keep their private lives scrupulously clean, develop self-restraint and be truthful and honest in thought and deed, in both personal and official life, so that the public may regard them as exemplary citizen.
12. The Police should recognize that their full utility to the State is the best ensured only by maintaining a high standard of discipline, faithful performance of duties in accordance with law and implicit obedience to the lawful directions of commanding ranks and absolute loyalty to the force and by keeping themselves in a state of constant training and preparedness.
13. As members of a secular, democratic State, the Police should strive continually to rise above personal prejudices and promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people in India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities and to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women and disadvantaged segments of the society."
15. The Superintendent of Police, in the counter-affidavit in W.P. No. 19056 of 2001, avers that as and when persons approach the police seeking redressal, police are acting upon it so as to avoid further clashes and to prevent law and order problem only, cannot be justified under any principle of law. The statement of the Superintendent of Police that whenever people approach the police with civil disputes, the people are being advised to approach the Civil Courts, is well within law and the same is recorded. It is observed that the Superintendent of Police may communicate a copy of this order to all the subordinate officials in his jurisdiction with a direction to keep in mind the provisions of section 155, "Cr. P.C." as well as Section, 21 of the Andhra Area Police Act, 1859.
16. In coming to the allegations and counter allegations in this case, no reply affidavit is filed in any of the writ petitions traversing the counter allegations. It is well settled that when affidavit averments are not specifically denied, the law presumes that they have been admitted. (See C. S. Rowji v. State of A. P., , Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, and Naseem Bano v. State of U. P., . Having regard to the pleadings, no finding can be recorded as the petition allegations are made on oath and counter allegations are made equally on oath. If any of the petitioners are still aggrieved against any alleged high-handedness of either Sub-Inspector of Police or Inspector of Police, it is open to them to approach the Superintendent of Police by lodging a complaint. As and when such complaint is made, the Superintendent of Police shall take necessary action after conducting enquiry against the concerned Police Inspector/Sub-Inspector, against whom complaint is made.
17. With the above observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.
Comments