PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has turned down plea of the wife of an accused teacher of University of Malakand, arrested for sexually harassing a female student, for registration of an FIR against family members of the student for allegedly manhandling and keeping them in illegal confinement.

A bench consisting of Justice Sabitullah Khan and Justice Salahuddin Khan rejected her petition and directed the investigation officer in the already registered FIR of the alleged occurrence to record statements of the petitioner and her husband under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

The bench referred to an earlier judgement of Supreme Court wherein it was declared that if an FIR had already been registered in respect of an incident, then registration of a second FIR regarding that very occurrence was not legally warranted, rather any further information regarding such incident was recorded in shape of daily diary recorded under Section 161 of CrPC.

The petitioner has refuted the allegations levelled against her husband, who was arrested in Feb this year in the high profile incident of harassment and criminal intimidation of a female student of the university.

Bench rules registration of second FIR of same occurrence unwarranted

The incident had resulted in a public outcry. The chief minister had also ordered an inquiry into the incident.

The petitioner had earlier filed a petition before court of an additional sessions judge under Section 22-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, under which the court exercised powers of justice of peace, for registration of an FIR against the family members of the student including her mother and brother in accordance with her (petitioner) version of the occurrence.

However, the additional session judge (ASJ) had rejected her plea on March 12, 2025, against which she had filed the instant petition.

The ASJ had observed that the FIR of the occurrence against the petitioner’s husband was registered on Feb 4, 2025, whereas the application by the petitioner for registration of her FIR was result of an afterthought and was aimed at defusing the prosecution case.

The ASJ had also referred to objectionable photos of females including that of university students, which were available in a mobile phone allegedly belonging to the accused teacher, observing that teacher was a role model for the society and if relationship between a teacher and students became so obnoxious then what could be expected about future of the country.

It is pertinent to mention here that a mobile phone allegedly belonging to the accused was recovered from the place of occurrence and from the said phone the investigation team had recovered objectionable videos, photos and chats in a large number.

The alleged victim student, who is complainant in the FIR against the teacher, had alleged that the accused had been harassing her for the last many months through different tactics.

She alleged that on the day of occurrence, he visited her residence and tried to forcibly take her away and on her hue and cry her family members gathered after which he fled from the scene.

The present petitioner claimed that she was accompanying her husband to the residence of the student for resolving the issue as the student had lodged a complaint against her husband with the university management. She alleged that she and her husband were manhandled and were also kept in illegal restraint by the family members of the student including her mother, brother and other relatives.

The bench observed that the record revealed that before approaching that court, the petitioner had not made any visible efforts before the high-ups of the respondents (Levies officials) in terms of filing of a complaint against them about her alleged allegations of favouring the opposite party.

“In such state of affairs, it was incumbent upon petitioner to first approach the high-ups of the respondents/Levies officials i.e district commandant of Malakand and in case of any refusal thereof, she would be at liberty to look for other avenues for redressal of her grievance,” the bench observed.

Published in Dawn, June 2nd, 2025