Can the FIR against a maintenance contractor who connected a private transformer without paying the prescribed tariff be quashed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court because it was not filed by an authorized person?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a person who works as a maintenance contractor for a municipal electricity distribution network is alleged to have connected a private transformer to the grid without paying the prescribed tariff, thereby drawing electrical energy for personal use.

The investigating agency registers an FIR that describes the conduct as “dishonest abstraction, consumption and use of electricity” and proceeds to charge the accused under the Electricity Act, invoking the provision that treats such conduct as theft. The complainant, a senior official of the electricity board, files a charge sheet and the trial court convicts the accused, imposing a fine and imprisonment. The accused does not dispute that electricity was drawn without payment, but argues that the prosecution itself is infirm because the law requires that any proceeding under the Act be instituted only at the instance of the Government, an Electrical Inspector, or a person aggrieved by the loss.

At the trial stage, the defence relies on the factual argument that the accused had no intent to permanently deprive the board of electricity, seeking a reduction of the penalty. However, this factual line of defence does not address the statutory requirement that the prosecution be launched by a person possessing a specific statutory qualification. The court’s conviction rests on the assumption that the FIR was validly filed, an assumption that the accused contests on a point of law.

The legal problem, therefore, is not whether the accused stole electricity, but whether the prosecution was lawfully instituted under the procedural safeguard embedded in the Electricity Act. The statute expressly limits the initiation of criminal proceedings to a narrow class of persons, and the record shows that the FIR was lodged by a junior police officer acting on a complaint, without any indication that the Government, an Electrical Inspector, or a directly aggrieved party had authorized the case.

Because the dispute centers on the legality of the prosecution rather than on the factual guilt of the accused, the appropriate remedy is a petition to quash the criminal proceedings. An ordinary appeal against conviction would be premature, as the trial court’s jurisdiction to entertain the case is questionable ab initio. The remedy must therefore be sought at the earliest stage, before the High Court, to prevent the continuation of an infirm prosecution.

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court possesses inherent powers to intervene when a criminal proceeding is manifestly illegal or an abuse of process. A petition filed under this inherent jurisdiction can request the court to set aside the FIR, dismiss the charge sheet, and direct the investigating agency to close the case. This is the procedural route that a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would advise the accused to pursue.

The accused engages a counsel who drafts a petition for quashing of the FIR, specifically invoking the statutory limitation in Section 50 of the Electricity Act. The petition argues that the prosecution was not instituted by any of the persons enumerated in the provision, and therefore the FIR is ultra vires. It also cites precedents where High Courts have exercised their power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent the continuation of proceedings that are legally untenable.

In support of the petition, the counsel attaches the FIR, the charge sheet, and the statements of the senior official who lodged the complaint, demonstrating the absence of any formal request from the Government or an Electrical Inspector. The petition further points out that the investigating agency failed to obtain a sanction required under the Act before proceeding, a procedural lapse that renders the entire case vulnerable to dismissal.

The High Court, upon receiving the petition, examines whether the statutory requirement of “instance” has been satisfied. It reviews the legislative intent behind Section 50, which aims to protect the public interest by ensuring that only parties with a direct stake can initiate prosecution for offences under the Act. The court also considers the principle that procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed by mere administrative convenience.

Finding that the prosecution was indeed instituted without the requisite authority, the High Court is empowered to quash the FIR and direct the investigating agency to close the file. This relief not only vindicates the accused’s right to be free from an illegal prosecution but also upholds the statutory scheme designed to prevent frivolous or unauthorized criminal actions.

Thus, the specific remedy that naturally follows from the legal problem is a petition for quashing of criminal proceedings before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This remedy addresses the core issue of procedural infirmity, rather than merely contesting the factual basis of the accusation.

In practice, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court might be consulted for related matters, but the proper forum for this particular statutory challenge is the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked to strike down an unlawful prosecution.

Consequently, the accused’s strategic choice to file a quashing petition, rather than pursue a conventional appeal, reflects a nuanced understanding of criminal procedural law. By targeting the foundational defect in the prosecution’s initiation, the remedy seeks to terminate the proceedings at the earliest possible stage, preserving the accused’s liberty and reinforcing the legislative safeguards embedded in the Electricity Act.

Question: Does the fact that a junior police officer lodged the FIR, without any indication of sanction or direction from the Government, an Electrical Inspector, or a directly aggrieved party, render the FIR invalid under the procedural safeguard embedded in the Electricity Act?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the accused, a maintenance contractor, was alleged to have connected a private transformer to the municipal grid and to have drawn electricity without paying the prescribed tariff. The investigating agency recorded these allegations in an FIR that characterises the conduct as “dishonest abstraction, consumption and use of electricity.” The statutory framework governing offences under the Electricity Act expressly limits the institution of criminal proceedings to three categories of persons: the Government, an Electrical Inspector, or a person who has suffered a loss directly attributable to the illegal abstraction. The FIR, however, was filed by a junior police officer acting on a complaint lodged by a senior board official, without any documentary evidence that the complainant possessed the statutory standing required to initiate prosecution. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the procedural requirement is not a mere formality but a substantive safeguard designed to prevent frivolous or unauthorized prosecutions. The legal problem, therefore, is not the alleged theft of electricity but the legitimacy of the initiating process. If the High Court accepts that the FIR was instituted without the requisite “instance,” it must deem the FIR ultra vires, leading to its quashing. The procedural consequence is that the entire criminal proceeding collapses at its foundation, irrespective of the factual guilt of the accused. Practically, this protects the accused from an unlawful prosecution, preserves the integrity of the statutory scheme, and sends a clear message to investigating agencies that they must verify the statutory standing of the complainant before filing an FIR. The High Court’s intervention would also underscore the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards embedded in the Electricity Act, thereby reinforcing the rule of law and preventing misuse of criminal process.

Question: Why is a petition for quashing of criminal proceedings before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the appropriate remedy in this case, rather than pursuing an ordinary appeal against the conviction?

Answer: The core dispute centers on the legality of the prosecution’s inception, not on the factual determination of theft. The trial court’s conviction was predicated on the assumption that the FIR was validly filed, an assumption the accused contests on a point of law. An ordinary appeal would review the trial court’s findings and the adequacy of evidence, but it would not address the fundamental defect that the prosecution may have been instituted without the statutory authority required under the Electricity Act. A petition for quashing, filed under the inherent powers of the High Court, directly challenges the existence of a valid criminal proceeding. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would advise that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, exercised through a writ of certiorari or a similar prerogative, is designed to prevent the continuation of proceedings that are manifestly illegal or an abuse of process. By filing a quashing petition, the accused seeks a pre‑emptive remedy that can terminate the case at its earliest stage, thereby avoiding the waste of time, resources, and potential custodial consequences associated with an appeal. The procedural consequence of a successful quashing is the dismissal of the FIR, the charge sheet, and any pending proceedings, effectively resetting the legal status of the accused. Practically, this approach safeguards the accused’s liberty, prevents the accrual of further costs, and upholds the statutory requirement that only authorized persons may initiate prosecution. Moreover, a quashing petition allows the High Court to scrutinise the legislative intent behind the procedural safeguard, reinforcing the principle that procedural rules cannot be bypassed for administrative convenience. Hence, the quashing petition is the most efficacious and legally sound avenue to address the foundational infirmity of the prosecution.

Question: How does the alleged procedural defect affect the trial court’s jurisdiction and the enforceability of the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused?

Answer: The trial court exercised jurisdiction on the premise that a valid FIR had been lodged, thereby granting it authority to conduct the inquiry, frame charges, and pass judgment. However, the statutory framework governing offences under the Electricity Act imposes a pre‑condition that the prosecution be instituted only by a Government authority, an Electrical Inspector, or a directly aggrieved party. If the High Court, upon review, determines that this pre‑condition was not satisfied, the trial court’s jurisdiction is retrospectively undermined because the court’s power to try a case emanates from a lawful commencement of proceedings. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would contend that without a valid FIR, the trial court’s judgment is void ab initio, rendering both the conviction and the accompanying fine and imprisonment unenforceable. The procedural defect therefore nullifies the legal basis for the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction, meaning that any orders issued, including custodial detention or monetary penalties, lack legal foundation. The practical implication for the accused is that any time spent in custody must be released, and any fines paid may be recoverable, subject to procedural rules on restitution. For the prosecution, the defect means that the case cannot be revived on the same factual basis; a fresh proceeding would require compliance with the statutory requirement, which may involve obtaining sanction from the appropriate authority. The investigating agency would need to reassess its position and possibly close the file, avoiding further infringement of the accused’s rights. Thus, the procedural flaw not only invalidates the trial court’s judgment but also shields the accused from enforcement actions, emphasizing the paramount importance of adhering to statutory initiation requirements before a court can lawfully exercise its jurisdiction.

Question: What are the practical consequences for the accused if the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes the FIR, including any impact on the criminal record, potential restitution, and future liability?

Answer: A quashing order from the High Court would extinguish the criminal proceedings at their inception, effectively erasing the legal cloud that has hung over the accused. The immediate practical effect is the release of the accused from any custodial status, if still detained, and the cessation of any ongoing investigation. Because the quashing is predicated on the lack of statutory authority to initiate prosecution, the court’s order would not be a declaration of innocence on the merits but a recognition that the process was unlawful. Consequently, the accused’s criminal record would not reflect a conviction; the entry of the FIR and charge sheet would be expunged or annotated as dismissed, preserving the accused’s reputation and mitigating collateral consequences such as employment restrictions. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would advise that the accused may also seek restitution of any fines paid or expenses incurred due to the unlawful prosecution, subject to the court’s discretion and the availability of evidence of payment. Additionally, the quashing order would preclude the prosecution from refiling the same case unless it can satisfy the statutory requirement of initiation by an authorized person, thereby providing a safeguard against future liability for the same conduct. However, the accused remains liable for any civil remedies that the electricity board might pursue for the unpaid tariff, as the criminal quashing does not extinguish a civil claim. Practically, the quashing restores the accused’s liberty, clears the criminal docket, and prevents the accrual of further criminal penalties, while also signaling to law enforcement agencies the necessity of strict compliance with procedural safeguards. The decision also serves as a deterrent against future unauthorized prosecutions, reinforcing the rule that procedural prerequisites are essential to uphold the rights of individuals facing criminal charges.

Question: Why does the petition to quash the criminal proceedings against the maintenance contractor have to be filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court rather than in a lower court or another forum?

Answer: The Punjab and Haryana High Court possesses the constitutional and statutory authority to entertain a petition that attacks the very foundation of a criminal case, namely the legality of the FIR and the competence of the prosecution. Under the inherent powers of the High Court, a petition for quashing can be entertained when the proceeding is manifestly illegal, an abuse of process, or when a statutory requirement for instituting prosecution has not been satisfied. In the present facts, the Electricity Act expressly limits the initiation of criminal proceedings to the Government, an Electrical Inspector, or a person directly aggrieved. The FIR was lodged by a junior police officer without any such sanction, rendering the prosecution ultra vires. A trial court, even if it has jurisdiction over the trial, cannot entertain a challenge to the existence of the FIR because it is bound by the procedural posture of the case and can only consider matters that arise after the charge sheet is filed. Moreover, the High Court is the appropriate forum for invoking the inherent jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent the continuation of an unlawful prosecution at the earliest stage. The accused therefore engages a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who can frame the petition under the inherent powers, cite precedents where the court has set aside FIRs that were not instituted by a person authorized under the statute, and request that the investigating agency be directed to close the file. The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction also allows it to issue interim orders, such as direction for release on bail, while the petition is being considered. By filing in the High Court, the accused ensures that the challenge is heard by a court with the authority to strike down the FIR, dismiss the charge sheet, and prevent the waste of judicial resources on a prosecution that never satisfied the statutory pre‑condition of “instance.” This strategic choice reflects the need to address the procedural defect before the case proceeds to trial, a step that lower courts simply cannot perform.

Question: How does the procedural route of filing a quashing petition differ from filing a regular appeal against conviction, and why is a purely factual defence insufficient at this stage?

Answer: A quashing petition is a pre‑trial remedy that attacks the legality of the criminal proceeding itself, whereas a regular appeal is a post‑conviction remedy that reviews the correctness of the trial court’s findings on facts and law. In the present scenario, the accused has not yet exhausted the trial process; the conviction rests on an FIR that may be ultra vires because it was not filed by a person authorized under the Electricity Act. A regular appeal would require the existence of a final judgment and would focus on whether the trial court erred in interpreting evidence or applying the law to the facts. However, the core issue here is statutory: the prosecution was instituted without the requisite “instance.” This point of law cannot be raised effectively on appeal because the appellate court’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the trial court’s record, not to re‑examine the validity of the FIR. A factual defence that the accused lacked intent to permanently deprive the board of electricity addresses the element of theft but does not confront the procedural defect that the prosecution was never lawfully commenced. The High Court, when entertained with a petition for quashing, can look beyond the evidentiary record and assess whether the statutory pre‑condition for instituting proceedings was fulfilled. The accused therefore retains a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court to draft a petition that sets out the statutory violation, attaches the FIR, charge sheet, and the complaint lodged by the senior official, and argues that the investigating agency failed to obtain the mandatory sanction. The petition also seeks an order that the FIR be set aside and the case dismissed, thereby pre‑empting any need for a factual defence at trial. By choosing the quashing route, the accused targets the procedural infirmity at its source, which a factual defence alone cannot remedy, and thereby preserves the possibility of complete discharge rather than merely seeking a reduction in penalty.

Question: What steps must the accused follow to obtain interim bail or release from custody while the quashing petition is pending, and why is the High Court the proper authority to grant such relief?

Answer: When the accused is in custody pending the disposition of a quashing petition, the appropriate remedy is to move the High Court for interim bail under its inherent powers to prevent the violation of personal liberty. The first step is to file an application for bail as part of the petition for quashing, clearly stating that the FIR is alleged to be illegal and that continued detention would amount to an abuse of process. The application must set out the facts of the case, the statutory requirement that the prosecution be instituted only by a qualified person, and the lack of any such instance in the present FIR. It should also attach the FIR, charge sheet, and any correspondence showing the absence of a sanction from the Government or an Electrical Inspector. The accused should then request that the High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, issue a direction for release on bail pending the final decision on the quashing petition. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can assist in drafting the bail application, ensuring that it complies with the procedural requirements for filing in the High Court, such as payment of court fees, service of notice to the prosecution, and compliance with any local rules regarding interim relief. The High Court is the proper authority because the petition itself is before that court; only the court hearing the substantive challenge to the FIR can grant interim relief that is directly linked to the merits of the petition. Moreover, the High Court’s power to grant bail in such circumstances is derived from its inherent jurisdiction to secure the rights of the accused and to prevent the continuation of an illegal proceeding. If the High Court grants bail, the accused is released from custody while the court examines whether the FIR should be set aside, thereby preserving liberty and ensuring that the accused is not subjected to unnecessary detention pending a decision on a procedural defect that may render the entire case void.

Question: How can the accused demonstrate that the FIR was not filed by a person authorized under the Electricity Act, and what evidentiary burden rests on the prosecution to prove compliance with the statutory requirement?

Answer: The onus of establishing that the FIR was lodged by a person authorized under the Electricity Act lies squarely on the prosecution, because the statute expressly conditions the institution of criminal proceedings on the “instance” of the Government, an Electrical Inspector, or a directly aggrieved party. To meet this burden, the prosecution must produce documentary evidence such as a written sanction from the Government, a formal order from an Electrical Inspector, or a complaint filed by a person who suffered a pecuniary loss due to the alleged theft of electricity. In the present facts, the FIR was recorded by a junior police officer based solely on the verbal complaint of a senior official of the electricity board, with no accompanying sanction or endorsement from the statutory authorities. The accused, through lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, can therefore file a petition that attaches the FIR, the charge sheet, and the original complaint, and specifically points out the absence of any annexed sanction or reference to an authorized initiator. The petition can also request that the High Court direct the investigating agency to produce the missing authorization, and if it fails to do so, to deem the FIR ultra vires. The evidentiary burden on the prosecution is not merely to show that a complaint was made, but to demonstrate that the complaint was made by a person falling within the statutory class prescribed by the Electricity Act. By highlighting the procedural gap, the accused shifts the evidentiary burden to the prosecution, forcing it to prove a fact that is absent from the record. If the prosecution cannot produce the requisite sanction, the High Court, guided by precedent, will likely conclude that the FIR is illegal and order its quashing. This approach underscores why a factual defence concerning intent or consumption is insufficient; the decisive issue is whether the statutory gateway for prosecution was lawfully opened, a question that the High Court is empowered to resolve.

Question: How can the defence exploit the procedural defect that the prosecution was not instituted by a person authorized under the statutory requirement, and what is the likely impact of raising this defect in a petition for quashing?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the FIR was lodged by a junior police officer after receiving a complaint from a senior electricity board official, without any formal request or sanction from the Government, an Electrical Inspector, or a directly aggrieved party as mandated by the Electricity Act. This omission is a classic procedural infirmity because the statute expressly limits the initiation of criminal proceedings to those with a specific statutory qualification. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would begin by highlighting that the investigating agency failed to obtain the prerequisite “instance” before registering the FIR, thereby rendering the entire criminal process ultra vires. The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to intervene in cases of manifest illegality can be invoked, and the defence can argue that allowing the case to proceed would contravene the legislative intent to protect against frivolous prosecutions. By focusing on the lack of statutory authority, the petition can request that the court set aside the FIR, dismiss the charge sheet, and direct the police to close the file. The impact of this argument is two‑fold: it attacks the foundation of the prosecution rather than the factual guilt, and it seeks a definitive termination of the proceedings at the earliest stage, preserving the accused’s liberty. Moreover, the court is likely to view the procedural lapse as a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured by subsequent compliance, making the quash petition a potent remedy. The defence must also be prepared to counter any claim that the senior official’s complaint suffices as “instance,” by demonstrating that the statutory language requires a formal, qualified initiation, not merely an administrative complaint. If successful, the High Court’s order would extinguish the criminal liability and preclude any further custodial consequences, thereby achieving the strategic objective of nullifying the prosecution on procedural grounds.

Question: Which specific documents and pieces of evidence should the defence gather to prove the absence of the required statutory sanction, and how should these be presented to the court?

Answer: The defence must assemble a comprehensive documentary record that illustrates the procedural gap. First, the original FIR should be obtained, highlighting the signature of the police officer and the absence of any reference to a sanction from the Government or an Electrical Inspector. Second, the charge sheet must be examined for any annexure indicating a formal request or order authorizing prosecution; its lack will reinforce the defect. Third, the complaint lodged by the senior electricity board official should be secured, together with any internal correspondence that shows the official acted in a personal capacity rather than as an aggrieved party under the statute. Fourth, the defence should request the production of any sanction letters, orders, or communications from the Electricity Board’s higher authority that could be construed as a statutory “instance.” The absence of such documents will be pivotal. Fifth, the defence may seek the minutes of the board’s meeting where the alleged loss was discussed, to demonstrate that no formal grievance was recorded. Additionally, affidavits from senior officials confirming that no sanction was issued can be filed. When presenting these materials, the defence should organize them chronologically, label each exhibit clearly, and reference them in the petition’s factual narrative. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would advise that the petition include a concise index of exhibits, each accompanied by a brief statement of relevance, to aid the judge’s quick comprehension. The defence should also attach a certified copy of the relevant provision of the Electricity Act that mandates the statutory “instance,” juxtaposed with the documentary evidence showing its non‑fulfilment. By meticulously correlating each piece of evidence with the statutory requirement, the court will be compelled to recognize the procedural void and consider quashing the proceedings.

Question: What are the custody and bail considerations for the accused after conviction, and how can a lawyer mitigate the risk of continued detention while the quash petition is pending?

Answer: Following conviction, the accused is likely in custody, facing both imprisonment and a fine. The immediate strategic priority is to secure bail pending the resolution of the quash petition, because continued detention would exacerbate personal hardship and could prejudice the defence’s ability to present evidence. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would first examine whether the conviction was pronounced without a proper hearing on the procedural defect, which may render the order vulnerable to reversal. The defence can file an application for bail on the ground that the conviction rests on an infirm prosecution and that the accused does not pose a flight risk or a threat to public order. The petition should emphasize that the accused has cooperated with the investigating agency, has no prior criminal record, and that the alleged conduct involved a non‑violent, economic offence. Moreover, the defence can argue that the pending quash petition raises a substantial question of law, and that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to stay the execution of the sentence until the petition is decided is well‑established. The bail application should be supported by a surety, a detailed affidavit of the accused’s residence, and a statement of financial capacity to pay the fine, if any, pending final determination. If bail is denied, the defence may seek a stay of the sentence under the inherent powers of the High Court, citing the procedural illegality as a ground for suspension. Additionally, the defence should request that the court allow the accused to remain out of prison while the petition is under consideration, thereby mitigating the risk of further prejudice. By proactively addressing custody concerns, the defence preserves the accused’s liberty and ensures that the quash petition can be pursued without the constraints of imprisonment.

Question: How does the nature of the complainant’s allegations and the role of the senior electricity board official influence the defence’s strategy to challenge the standing of the prosecution?

Answer: The complainant, a senior official of the electricity board, lodged a complaint alleging dishonest abstraction of electricity, but the statutory framework distinguishes between a grievance of a private aggrieved party and a formal instance required for prosecution. The defence must dissect the complainant’s allegations to demonstrate that they do not satisfy the statutory definition of an “aggrieved person” capable of initiating criminal proceedings. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would advise that the defence scrutinize the language of the complaint, noting that it reflects an administrative concern rather than a personal loss that triggers the statutory “instance.” The defence can argue that the official’s position does not automatically confer the status of a statutory aggrieved party, as the Act intends the term to apply to individuals who suffer a direct loss, not to institutional representatives acting in a regulatory capacity. Moreover, the defence should highlight that the complaint was not accompanied by a formal demand for restitution or a request for prosecution, which are essential elements of the statutory requirement. By emphasizing this distinction, the defence undermines the prosecution’s standing, showing that the case was launched on an administrative complaint rather than a legally recognised instance. The defence can also present evidence that the electricity board’s internal audit did not record any financial loss attributable to the accused, further weakening the claim of an aggrieved party. This line of argument shifts the focus from the factual act of drawing electricity to the procedural illegitimacy of the prosecution’s foundation, reinforcing the petition for quashing. Ultimately, the defence’s strategy is to portray the complainant’s allegations as insufficient to satisfy the statutory prerequisite, thereby depriving the prosecution of the necessary standing to proceed.

Question: What concrete steps should a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court take when drafting and filing the petition for quashing, and what procedural safeguards must be observed to maximize the chance of success?

Answer: The first step is to conduct a meticulous review of the case file, extracting the FIR, charge sheet, complaint, and any correspondence that evidences the lack of statutory sanction. The lawyer must then craft a petition that clearly sets out the factual background, identifies the statutory requirement for initiation, and demonstrates its non‑fulfilment. The petition should open with a concise statement of relief sought – the quashing of the FIR and dismissal of the charge sheet – and then articulate the legal basis, citing the relevant provision of the Electricity Act and the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process. Each factual assertion must be supported by an exhibit, and the petition should include a detailed annexure listing all documents. Procedural safeguards include ensuring that the petition is filed within the appropriate limitation period, that proper service is effected on the prosecution, and that a copy is served on the complainant and the investigating agency. The lawyer should also request an interim order staying the execution of the sentence, citing the pending challenge to jurisdiction. It is prudent to include a prayer for the release of the accused on bail, linking it to the procedural defect. The petition must be signed by counsel and accompanied by an affidavit affirming the truth of the facts. Before filing, the lawyer should verify that the court’s registry has accepted the petition and that the case number is correctly recorded. Finally, the lawyer should be prepared to argue the petition orally, focusing on the legislative intent to restrict prosecutions to qualified initiators and emphasizing that the absence of such initiation renders the entire proceeding void. By adhering to these steps and procedural safeguards, the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court maximizes the likelihood that the court will grant the quash petition and terminate the criminal action.