PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has quashed an order of special judge, anti-terrorism court, Swat, issued as ‘justice of peace’ and an FIR registered thereunder against MNA Dr Amjad Ali, accusing him of sedition and waging war against the state.

A bench consisting of Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal and Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah accepted a petition filed by Dr Amjad requesting to set aside the Jan 22, 2026, order of the special judge ATC, exercising powers of ‘justice of peace’ under section 22-A of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the FIR registered in the light of that order at Kokarai police station, Swat.

The bench ruled that the special judge, ATC, was not empowered to exercise powers of ‘justice of peace’ as the same were not conferred on him.

“It may be reiterated that ATC is a special court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and is required to perform judicial functions qua trial of offences registered under the said Act after receipt of challan from the prosecution. It cannot entertain an application under Section 22-A, CrPC,” the bench ruled in its 10-page detailed judgement.

Rules special judge not empowered to act as ‘justice of peace’

After discussing in detail different provisions of CrPC, Anti-Terrorism Act and judgements of superior courts, the bench ruled: “The above legal discourse leads us to an irresistible conclusion that the learned judge, ATC, does not hold the quasi-judicial status of ex-officio justice of peace. Rather, he is performing only judicial functions strictly in respect of trial of criminal cases already registered under the provisions of ATA, 1997, by applying the provisions of CrPC only to the extent that they are not inconsistent with ATA, 1997.”

“The powers u/s 22-A, CrPC, exercised under the ordinary law (CrPC) were not vested in the learned ATC. The application u/s 22-A CrPC out to have been dismissed by it on the ground of maintainability,” the bench ruled.

The court ruled that the especial judge of ATC, while entertaining the application filed under Section 22-A CrPC, seeking registration of criminal case against the petitioner, lacked lawful authority either to entertain the application or to pass the impugned order.

“The impugned order is, therefore, patently illegal and without lawful authority. Consequently, the FIR registered pursuant thereto is also not sustainable in law,” the bench maintained.

The bench pointed out that the respondent No.2 (complainant against the petitioner), if so advised, may approach the competent court of justice of peace for redressal of his grievance, in accordance with law.

The bench clarified that only pure legal question regarding the jurisdiction of the special judge, ATC, was examined and resolved in that constitutional petition and no factual aspect of the case had been touched upon.

“The determination of this legal issue shall not prejudice the rights of the respondent/complainant, as it is settled principle of law that when a thing is required to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner and not otherwise,” the bench observed.

Advocates Razaud Din and Rashid Ali Khan appeared for the petitioner and stated that registration of the impugned FIR was an attempt to harass and victimise a sitting MNA.

They stated that special judge, ATC, had no jurisdiction either to entertain the application under Section 22-A CrPC or give direction for registration of the FIR.

The additional advocate general, Haq Nawaz Khan, argued that the offences alleged were of such nature that they attracted ATA, 1997, and that ATC being a court of sessions under the Act could competently act.

The bench observed that the special judge, ATC, was appointed under a special statute, and his powers were circumscribed by ATA, 1997. “The statute creates a special forum for special offences, and the forum cannot travel beyond its statutory mandate,” the bench ruled.

The bench pointed out that Section 25 of CrPC clearly nominated sessions judges of the respective districts as justices of peace for the whole of the district, in which they were serving, but the said section made no mention of the judges of special courts, including that of ATCs.

It is pertinent to mention that the respondent (complainant) Sajid Ali had filed an application under Section 22-A CrPC before ATC swat, seeking registration of a criminal case against Dr Amjad Ali.

He alleged that during a public gathering, the petitioner had incited people against the state and its institutions by threatening to storm GHQ and cantonments etc in Mingora. After hearing arguments, ATC had allowed the application on Jan 22, and the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioner the same day.

Published in Dawn, February 23rd, 2026