Telangana High Court Raps Police for Settling Civil Disputes

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday criticised the state police for interfering in civil disputes and facilitating settlements at police stations, observing that many police stations had turned into "settlement addas".

The court remarked that this disturbing trend had intensified since the formation of the separate Telangana State and had now reached its peak. It expressed concern over the rising number of petitions filed against police interference in civil matters, despite the existence of injunction orders issued by the judiciary.

The court directed the police to inform parties involved in such disputes that their only legal remedy is to approach the courts for vacating injunction orders, not to resort to physical force or intimidation. The court also cited a recent Supreme Court ruling, which held that long-term possession without valid documents does not confer legal rights over a property.

Justice Tadakamalla Vinod Kumar, who was hearing the case, asked the Director General of Police (DGP) to revisit the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) governing police duties and to incorporate the latest judicial directions related to civil disputes. He further instructed that these SOPs be uploaded on official websites and displayed in all police stations so the public can access and understand them.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Pamu Sudharshanam, who accused the Nagole police of abusing their authority by colluding with real estate agents to settle civil and criminal disputes related to Plot No. 65 in Krushi Nagar, Bandlaguda, under the Nagole police station limits. The petitioner alleged that police pressured him into settling the case by accepting `55 lakh.

The court pulled up Rachakonda police commissioner G. Sudheer Babu, who appeared virtually, and the station house officer (SHO) of Nagole police station, who was present in person, over their alleged involvement in the land dispute and for harassing the petitioner.

The High Court, having found prima facie evidence that the Nagole police detained the petitioner from morning to evening on June 19 to force a settlement, directed the police to submit CCTV footage from that day as evidence.

Despite three civil cases pending in court and injunction orders in force, the opposite party reportedly damaged the petitioner’s property. Police allegedly refused to register a case against them, claiming it was a civil matter. However, the same police registered an FIR against the petitioner, accusing him of submitting fabricated documents and detained him from 10 am to 9.30 pm on June 19. Police defended their action by stating they had summoned him to serve Section 35 notices related to an earlier FIR.

The court faulted the police for misinterpreting court injunctions and manipulating civil and criminal charges at their convenience. It questioned why no action had been taken for criminal trespass, damage and destruction, and reiterated that police are not authorised to determine possession of land or property in matters where injunction orders are in place.