Not Job Of Police To Meddle With Or Adjudicate Civil Disputes: Kerala HC
1. The Core Principle: Police Are for Criminal Law, Not Civil Disputes
Why is this principle important?
Police are an executive body entrusted with maintaining law and order, investigating crimes, and ensuring public safety.
Civil disputes involve private rights and obligations, which are to be resolved by civil courts through judicial processes.
Police intervening in civil matters often leads to:
Misuse of authority
Arbitrary arrests or harassment
Violation of constitutional rights like personal liberty (Article 21)
Undermining the judicial process
2. Kerala High Court Judgment – Summary
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court clearly held that:
Police have no authority to act as arbitrators or adjudicators in civil disputes.
Police should not interfere with civil disputes unless there is a criminal offence or breach of peace.
The role of the police is limited to maintaining public order, not resolving ownership or contract disputes, family disputes, or other civil matters.
3. Foundational Case Laws
🧑⚖️ A. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) — The Landmark Guidelines for Police
The Supreme Court laid down strict guidelines to prevent abuse of the criminal law machinery.
Emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be used as a weapon to settle civil disputes.
Police cannot register cases or arrest parties in purely civil matters unless there is a clear criminal offense.
🧑⚖️ B. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989)
The Supreme Court underscored the importance of differentiating between civil disputes and criminal offences.
Police cannot act as quasi-judicial bodies or decide rights of parties in civil matters.
🧑⚖️ C. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
The Supreme Court emphasized the role of courts in adjudicating disputes and warned against any encroachment by executive authorities like police in civil jurisdiction.
🧑⚖️ D. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1993)
Held that the police have no power to act in matters involving private disputes unless a cognizable offence is committed.
4. Illustrative Example: Domestic/Family Disputes
Family disputes are often civil in nature (e.g., property rights, maintenance claims).
The police should not interfere unless there is a breach of peace, domestic violence, or criminal assault.
Courts provide specialized forums like Family Courts to address these disputes.
5. Practical Implications
Police cannot register FIRs or initiate criminal proceedings merely because one party alleges a civil dispute.
If police intervene in civil disputes without a cognizable offence, it is a violation of constitutional protections under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Courts can quash FIRs or criminal proceedings arising out of civil disputes (Section 482 CrPC).
6. Summary of the Principle
| Aspect | Police Role | Civil Courts Role |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of dispute | Criminal offences, breaches of peace | Private rights, contracts, property, family issues |
| Authority | Investigate crimes, maintain law and order | Adjudicate rights and liabilities |
| FIR Registration | Only if a cognizable offence is committed | Not for pure civil disputes |
| Dispute Resolution | Not authorized to resolve civil rights | Authorized to hear and decide disputes |
7. Concluding Remarks
The Kerala High Court’s reiteration of this principle safeguards citizens from arbitrary and excessive police intervention in personal and private matters. It protects the separation of powers between the executive (police) and judiciary and reinforces the rule of law.
This ensures that the police focus on their legitimate role in crime prevention and public order, while the civil justice system handles disputes requiring judicial determination.
RELATED Blog
0 comments