PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has set aside an order of the ex-officio justice of peace for the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa inspector general of police (IGP) to conduct departmental proceedings and act against the Peshawar capital city police officer (CCPO) and two other police officials, who were accused of harassing some people to settle a civil dispute.

A bench consisting of Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Farah Jamshed accepted a petition jointly filed by CCPO Dr Mian Saeed Ahmad, DSP Ihsanullah and SHO Saleem Khan against the impugned order issued on March 30, 2026, by the justice of peace (JoP), functioning under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The impugned order was issued by the JoP over an application filed by Saleema Masood and others alleging that a respondent in the case Haji Allah Nazar had filed an application before the CCPO, wherein he had claimed that he had entrusted some money to their father.

They claimed that despite lacking lawful authority the DSP and SHO of the Gulbahar police station were threatening and pressuring them to enter into a compromise with that person.

Declares justice of peace overstepped powers

“Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court has arrived at the considered conclusion that the applicants neither possessed any substantive material nor placed before the ex-officio Justice of Peace any cogent, confidence-inspiring, or legally recognisable evidence capable of justifying the serious allegations levelled against the petitioners,” the bench observed.

It ruled that the entire foundation of the application appeared to rest on generalised and unsubstantiated assertions of harassment and humiliation, which, without independent corroboration, unfortunately became the basis for the passing of the impugned observations and directions.

“What appears to this court to be particularly striking and indeed somewhat paradoxical, is the fact that the learned ex-officio Justice of Peace himself was not persuaded that the allegations levelled by the applicant constituted sufficient ground for issuance of directions regarding registration of an FIR, yet, simultaneously, on the basis of the very same allegations, the petitioners were virtually treated as blameworthy and directions for initiation of departmental proceedings against them came to be issued.

These two conclusions, when placed side by side, create an apparent inconsistency which this Court cannot overlook,” it declared in a 30-page judgement authored by Justice Asadullah.

The bench added that after a careful examination of the relevant law, including its statutory scheme, historical evolution and comparative jurisprudential understanding, it held that the learned ex-officio Justice of Peace, while passing the impugned observations, transgressed the lawful limits of his jurisdiction and inadvertently entered into a domain reserved for other competent authorities under the law.

It added that a plain reading of the statutory provisions, when examined in juxtaposition with the allegations levelled by the applicants, unmistakably led it to the conclusion that the ex-officio justice of peace fell into legal error while rendering the impugned observations and directions and, in effect, adopted an interpretation of law which cannot be sustained on the touchstone of settled legal principles.

“The impugned observations, being unsupported by legally ascertainable material and having been recorded in excess of the jurisdiction vested in the ex-officio Justice of Peace, cannot be permitted to retain the force of law,” it observed.

The bench discussed in detail the growing cases before the high court and ex-officio JoP with allegations of police high-handedness, harassment and abuse of authority.

It explained when the police could exercise its authority in civil disputes.

Discussing different aspects of the matter, the bench ruled: “However, in civil disputes already pending before competent Courts, or in matters where judicial cognisance has been taken, any parallel interference by police authorities must be exercised with caution and within the confines of law, so as to avoid jurisdictional overlap and procedural conflict.”

“It is imperative to maintain a clear and workable distinction between cases warranting judicial intervention and those in which law-enforcement agencies may appropriately act in aid of mediation, prevention of breach of peace, or facilitation of amicable resolution,” it declared.

The bench observed that a calibrated and judicious approach was required, whereby only those matters which disclose prima facie credible material were permitted to proceed further, while frivolous or unsubstantiated allegations were appropriately sifted at the threshold.

“At the same time, this Court must emphasise that this does not, and cannot, mean that legitimate grievances against law-enforcement agencies are to be discouraged or filtered out arbitrarily.”

The bench added that on the contrary, where credible material exists indicating unlawful interference, dispossession, harassment, or abuse of authority, particularly in matters involving vulnerable individuals or property disputes, the law-enforcement agencies are not only competent but duty bound to intervene in accordance with the law.

Published in Dawn, May 21st, 2026