PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Wednesday declared police action against land mafia, encroachers’ groups, and other criminal elements lawful, observing that law enforcement agencies were empowered under the Constitution and the law to take indiscriminate action against criminal networks in order to restore public confidence in state institutions.
However, the court also ruled that in matters pending before civil courts, law enforcement agencies must remain within the limits of the law and avoid unlawful actions that could damage their credibility.
The court accepted a petition filed by Peshawar police officials and set aside an order of a subordinate court directing an inquiry against the officers.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Farah Jamshed heard the petition filed by Capital City Police Officer (CCPO) Mian Saeed Ahmad and other officials.
During the hearing, the court was informed that a woman identified as Saleema Mehsud had filed an application under Section 22-A before a sessions court, alleging misuse of authority and harassment by police officials.
According to the case details, Allah Nazar had submitted an application to the CCPO claiming that he had paid Rs20.3 million in Afghan currency, $3,000 and Rs25,000 to the woman’s father. The petitioners argued that the matter was civil in nature and did not warrant criminal proceedings.
They alleged that Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Gulbahar and other officials repeatedly summoned and harassed the applicants while misusing their authority.
The Justice of Peace, while deciding the Section 22-A application, directed the Inspector General of Police to initiate departmental proceedings against the concerned police officers for allegedly exceeding their authority. The order was subsequently challenged before the high court by CCPO Mian Saeed and other police officials.
Counsel for the petitioners, Muhammad Yousaf Orakzai, argued that the Justice of Peace had exceeded jurisdiction and that the order was contrary to the requirements of justice.
He contended that restraining police officers from performing their duties and issuing such judicial orders would demoralise law enforcement personnel and adversely affect their ability to perform effectively.
The counsel pleaded that such restrictions would weaken the importance of law in the eyes of anti-state elements and that effective action against such groups was essential for maintaining peace in society.
After arguments, the court issued a detailed 30-page judgment authored by Justice Sahibzada Asadullah.
The court held that powers under Section 22-A were not unlimited and that a Justice of Peace cannot function as an investigating authority or disciplinary forum.
Referring to earlier superior court judgments, the court observed that the judiciary and other authorities must exercise their powers within legal limits in a manner that did not undermine the dignity of institutions or officials.
The judgment stated that before issuing inquiry orders, it was necessary to examine the legal status of the application and material presented before the Justice of the Peace. However, in this case, the Justice of the Peace had acted beyond jurisdiction.
The written verdict further observed that law enforcement agencies may intervene, in accordance with the law, in disputes involving threats to life and property in addition to property-related conflicts, but such interventions must remain within lawful bounds.
The court emphasised that police should continue indiscriminate action against land grabbers and encroachment mafias to safeguard citizens’ inheritance and property rights, maintain peace and restore people’s trust in institutions and the justice delivery system.
The judgment also noted that the respondents failed to provide any solid material or evidence to substantiate allegations against the police officers or prove that they had been harassed.
The court concluded that a Justice of the Peace could not be allowed to restrain a lawful authority from performing its legal functions and subsequently set aside the impugned order.
