LHC Bins Harrashment Plea, Directs Petititoner to Avail Alternative Remedies

The Lahore High Court (LHC) Multan Bench dismissed a plea, seeking protection from police harassment. She alleged that police were harassing her and her husband at her family’s will. The court ruled she should instead pursue a remedy with an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Cr.P.C. or by approaching authorities under the Police Order, 2002 in the matter.

A single-member bench of the LHC Multan Bench Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf ruled in a reported verdict saying the petitioner should have pursued an alternative and effective remedy available under the law rather than invoking the High Court’s extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.

The petitioner, who claimed to have married of her own free will, alleged that police were harassing her and her husband at the behest of her parents and other family members. Her counsel initially sought to strike the word ‘illegal’ from the prayer clause, which was allowed.

However, Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf, in his order dated August 7, 2025, noted that a person seeking to invoke the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction must demonstrate that no other ‘efficacious and adequate remedy’ is available. The court found that the petitioner’s grievance could be addressed through a petition to an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) or by approaching the authorities under the Police Order, 2002.

The court cited precedent set in the Khizer Hayat case (PLD 2005 Lahore 470), which highlighted the powers of a Justice of Peace to handle complaints of police harassment. The verdict also referenced the Police Order, 2002, which holds police officers accountable for negligence or omission in their duties.

Justice Rauf criticized the growing trend of bypassing alternative remedies and approaching the High Court directly, saying this “unnecessarily burdened the docket of the High Court and as such, deprives the litigants, who have their genuine causes to lay before the High Court”. The court emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction is an “extra ordinary jurisdiction which is only to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases but not as per convenience of the parties”.

The petition was dismissed in limine, with the court advising the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedies available to her.