The objectives of this analysis were for the patrol police officials to realize how to decide while controlling interpersonal disputes in variant situations and also to experience the factors associating their decisions in controlling interpersonal disputes. The origins of interpersonal disputes mentioned in this analysis round up the following criminal cases: flagrant insults, noisy quarrels in public, causing loss of property, committing defamation and committing bodily harm-slightly or seriously. The policemen group that has made this analysis possible were patrol police officials working as non-commissioned police officers and police constables of different provincial police stations in the area of the First Provincial Plice Bureau. From the cluster sampling the chosen sample group used for this study consists of 282 policemen. In order to get the data a form of questionaired called Factorial Survey was made to serve the purpose. By analysing the facts the analyst has used statistic ration in percentage, Chi-square, Contingency Coefficient, Kendall Rank Correlation Coefficient (Tau B, Tau C) Before reporting the results of the analysis some background facts of the patrol police officials are equally interesting: most of them are between 20-27 years old, working years between 1-B, education-middle level - that is finishing high school-not getting bachelor degrees, lack of juridical knowledge, single and never gaining any further training courses since placement. Concerning the decisions of the patrol police officials in controlling different disputes it was found out that by enforcing the law the seriousness of their enforcement varies frog low degree, middle degree, to high degree. Low degree in enforcing law was decided to use for case like flagrant insults, middle degree for noisy quarrels in public and defamation, and high degree for causing loss of property, bodily harm - by slight and serious injuring. By studying different factors associating with patrol officials, decision in controlling interpersonal disputes the following facts are uncovered: 1. By flagrant insults the factors for their decisions were their educational level, the relationship of both disputants and their agreement. 2. By controlling noisy quarrels in public the factor for their decision wag only the agreement of both disputants. 3. By controlling causes of property loss the factors for their decisions were their married status, the relationships of both disputants, and their agreement. 4. By controlling defamation the factors for their decision were their age, their juridical knowledge, the relationship of both disputants, and their agreement. 5. By controlling bodily harm - slight injury - the factors for their decision were their married status and the agreement of both disputants. 6. By controlling bodily harm - serious injury - the factors for their decision were their age, their educational level, their Juridical knowledge, social status of the alleged person and the agreement of both disputants, Recommendation 1. Police Department should more seriously study and correct more about the quality of the policemen especially the lack of furthur adequate education and the lack of juridical knowledge. The policmen should be trained to cope with modern sophisticatid crimes and developing society. 2. If length of time, budget and manpower are available the study of this them a should continue in the form of practical observation. This means to go and watch how the patrol officials work. By this way the facts recieved will be mostly true, the understanding of surrounding condition in decision will be profound. Its much better than reading answers of questionaires. 3. Other factors not mentioned in this analysis should also be considered, because this analysis is only a bivariate relationship.