ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. The petitioners are residents of Vaddigudem village, Peddapadu Mandal of West Godavari district. They have fish tanks in the village since 1985. They used to purchase De-oiled Rice Bran, the main fish feed, from the 4th respondent namely M/s Chaitanya Oils Limited, (for short 'the Company') Kurumaddali, Pamaruu Mandal, Krishna district. In 1989 that they stopped buying De-oiled Rice Bran from the Company. It is also alleged that Mr. Pedda Chalapathi Rao, China Chalapathi Rao and Sambasiva Rao, who are the employees of the Company, came to the village and offered to supply the feed at concessional rates. But, the petitioners to declined to purchase. In February, 2002, the 1st respondent, it is alleged, summoned the petitioners and pressurised them to clear the amount of Rs.65,00,000/- allegedly due from the petitioners to the Company. The petitioners contend that they are not liable to pay any amount to the Company. Again they were forced to meet the 1st respondent on 8.6.2002. The 4th respondent, who is the Managing Director of the Company, demanded that the petitioners must buy the De-oiled Rice Bran from his unit and also informed that he would withdraw the cases against the petitioners if they buy the rice bran. On 12.6.2002 again the Police came and demanded payment of Rs.65,00,000/-. Therefore, they filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere and pressurise the petitioners in relation to a civil dispute.
2. At the time of preliminary hearing itself, a counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. It is stated that the 4th respondent made a written complaint on 7.6.2002 stating that the petitioners herein are due an amount of about Rs.66,00,000/- to the Company, that when the Company staff approached them for collecting the amount, the petitioners threatened and abused them in filthy language and, therefore, requested the Police to warn the petitioners. The complaint made by the 4th respondent was forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. On 11.6.2002 the 1st respondent sent P.C.197 to the petitioners asking them to approach the Police Station on 12.6.2002 for the purpose of enquiry, but the petitioners did not go to the Police Station.
3. A copy of the complaint given by the 4th respondent on 7.6.2002 to the 2nd respondent is placed before me. In the said complaint, the 4th respondent, while informing about the activities and business of the Company, stated that the Company has to receive approximately about Rs.66,00,000/- from 12 customers of Vaddigudem village and when two teams of the Company staff approached the petitioners, the petitioners threatened the staff not to come to the village. The 4th respondent also requested the 2nd respondent 'to look into the matter seriously and after thorough investigation, ... kindly warn them not to sway rowdism and behave rotten and do the justice,'.
4. On the complaint given, which is made part of the record, the 2nd respondent endorsed as under:
'S.I. Peddapadu enquire and take n/a and inform me within 4 days. Sd/- 10.6.2002'
5. After perusing the complaint given by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent one thing is very clear. The 4th respondent never complained commission of cognisable offence by the petitioners. Therefore, there is no occasion for the respondents 1 and 2 to register a cognisable crime under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). Rightly, they did not register any crime. They also rightly did not take any action under Chapter XI of the Code. The dispute between the 4th respondent and the petitioners viz., the alleged liability of the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.66,00,000/- to the 4th respondent is a civil dispute which has to be resolved by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, the endorsement made by the 2nd respondent requiring the 1st respondent to enquire and take necessary action is improper. Any impropriety on the part of the Police, which offends the fundamental rights or human rights, cannot be treated lightly by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a sentinel quivive and guardian of the basic fundamental rights and human rights of the citizens, this Court must respond to the grievance of the petitioners. Be it noted that the right to seek redressal in a properly constituted forum/court is a human right recognised even under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, which is now part of the Indian law by reason of Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Article 8 of the Universal Declaration reads as under:
'Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted to him by the constitution or by law.'
6. In directing/commanding the 1st respondent to take necessary action in relation to a civil dispute, the 2nd respondent became a privity to a conduct, which has the tendency to breach the human rights. Therefore, the petitioners were justified in approaching this Court seeking appropriate declaration.
7. This Court and the Supreme Court repeatedly have laid down that the Police shall not interfere in civil disputes and that they shall not investigate any conduct of a citizen, which does not amount to a cognisable offence or offence.
8. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs. The respondents 1 and 2 shall deposit the costs of Rs.5,000/- in this Court within a period of four weeks from today. As and when such deposit is made, the petitioners shall file an appropriate application before the Registrar (Judicial) and claim the amount.