PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has directed local police not to harass some petitioners in a civil dispute and to act in the matter in accordance with law.
A bench consisting of Justice Mohammad Ijaz Khan and Justice Sadiq Ali disposed of a petition filed by Ihsanullah and some of his family members, with the direction to respondents including police officials to follow the observations made by the court in its earlier judgement in an identical matter on April 22, 2026.
The petitioners had sought declaration ofthe courtthatany act by police of referring civil disputes to dispute resolution council (DRC) or any other forum where a police officer act as adjudicator without lawful authority was illegal and unconstitutional.
They sought directives of the courtfortherespondentsincluding SHO of Inqilab police sta-tion, its additional SHO, DSP, SSP and capital city police officer not to harass, intimidate or coerce the petitioners and also not to interfere in a matter pertaining to their civil dispute.
Advocate Fawad Khan Musazai appeared for the petitioners and stated that a civil dispute between the parties was already pending before a court of competent jurisdiction.
However, he said that despite the matter being sub judice, local police had been interfering in the dispute, harassing and intimidating the petitioners, and attempting to exert pressure upon them under the guise ofpolice proceedings.
He claimed that on an application submitted to CCPO by the rival party, the matter was marked to relevant police officials, who thereafter started summoning and pressurising the petitioners in relation to the pending civil dispute.
He referred to the earlier judgement of the high court delivered on April 22, 2026, stating that he would be satisfied if the instant petition was also disposed of in the light of the earlier order.
In its earlier order, the courthad observed: ‘We with the valuable assistance of learned counsel, have examined the record of the pending civil suit and found that the matter is indeed sub judice, therefore, any attempt by local police to assume jurisdiction in the same matter would amount to overstepping their lawful authority and encroaching upon the powers vested in the civil courts, as law enforcement agencies are obligated to act strictly within the bounds of their competence.
‘The application submitted to CCPO, having been filed by the son of the plaintiff, does not authorise police to interfere in the pending civil dispute, and they may proceed against the petitioner only if a separate and distinguishable complaint arises,’ the court had ruled.
The court had ordered: ‘The respondents are directed to refrain from harassing the petitioner and to act in accordance with law, failing which they shall be answerable for their conduct.
Recently, the high court in another of its judgement delivered in the case (CCPO Dr Mian Saeed versus Saleema Masood)had also discussed the issue of police exercising its authority in civil disputes.
Discussing different aspects of the matter, the court had 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.
‘Therefore, 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,’ the bench said.
The court was of the opinion 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.