Can the lack of a magistrate written complaint deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to take cognizance of a false statement offence?

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

Suppose a senior revenue clerk in a northern district drafts a written note to the district magistrate alleging that two local traders forcibly entered his office, damaged official records and appropriated a sum of cash belonging partly to the government, and he requests immediate investigation. The clerk marks the note as “for information only” and forwards it through the subordinate revenue officer to the magistrate’s office. The magistrate, after receiving the note, forwards it to the investigating agency, which conducts an inquiry and concludes that the allegations were fabricated. Despite the inquiry report, the investigating agency prepares a charge‑sheet and initiates prosecution against the clerk under the provision that penalises false statements to a public servant.

The clerk is taken into custody, and the trial court proceeds to try him, ultimately convicting him and imposing a term of rigorous imprisonment. In his defence, the clerk argues that the original note was not a formal complaint but merely an informational communication, and that the magistrate never filed a written complaint as required by law. He further contends that the charge‑sheet prepared by the police cannot substitute for a complaint made by the public servant concerned, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence.

The legal problem that emerges is not a dispute over the truth of the factual allegations but a procedural defect: the statutory pre‑condition that a court may only take cognizance of offences punishable under the false‑statement provision when a written complaint is lodged by the public servant who is the intended recipient of the false statement. The investigating agency’s charge‑sheet, however, does not satisfy this requirement because the magistrate, who is the public servant concerned, never filed a written complaint. Consequently, the trial court’s jurisdiction is called into question.

Because the defect relates to the very jurisdiction of the trial court, an ordinary factual defence at the trial stage cannot cure the defect. The appropriate remedy is to challenge the very existence of the prosecution on jurisdictional grounds before a higher authority that can review the lower court’s exercise of jurisdiction. In this context, the procedural route that naturally follows is a criminal revision petition filed under the Criminal Procedure Code before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the statutory requirement of a written complaint by the public servant was not fulfilled.

To pursue this remedy, the clerk engages a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who prepares a revision petition that specifically raises the issue of non‑compliance with the mandatory pre‑condition under the relevant procedural provision. The petition argues that the investigating agency’s charge‑sheet cannot be treated as a substitute for a complaint made by the magistrate, and that the trial court’s cognizance was therefore illegal. The revision seeks an order directing the trial court to dismiss the charge‑sheet and release the accused from custody, as well as a declaration that the prosecution is barred by the absence of a valid written complaint.

In parallel, the clerk also consults a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court for a comparative perspective on similar jurisdictional challenges, noting that the jurisprudence of that court has consistently held that a written complaint by the public servant is indispensable for cognizance of offences under the false‑statement provision. The advice from the lawyers in Chandigarh High Court reinforces the strategy of emphasizing the procedural defect rather than contesting the factual matrix of the allegations.

The revision petition, once filed, triggers the High Court’s power to examine whether the lower court acted within its jurisdiction. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, can entertain the petition even though the trial court has already rendered a judgment, because the alleged jurisdictional defect is a matter of law that can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The High Court may then issue a writ of certiorari or an order of quashing, thereby nullifying the conviction and restoring the accused’s liberty.

Why does the remedy lie specifically before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and not before any other forum? The offence in question falls under the category of offences that require a written complaint by the public servant, as stipulated in the procedural code. The High Court is the appropriate appellate forum for criminal revisions arising from orders of the subordinate courts within its territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, the High Court has the authority to entertain revision petitions under the Criminal Procedure Code when a question of jurisdiction arises, making it the proper venue to address the defect.

The accused’s legal team therefore files the revision, meticulously citing precedents that establish the necessity of a written complaint by the public servant and highlighting the procedural lapse. The petition also points out that the investigating agency’s “calendar” and internal notes cannot satisfy the statutory requirement, as the law expressly mandates a complaint made by the public servant or a subordinate to whom he is subordinate. By focusing on this statutory interpretation, the revision seeks to demonstrate that the trial court’s cognizance was ultra vires.

Upon consideration of the revision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court examines the record, including the original note, the magistrate’s forwarding of the note, the police report, and the charge‑sheet. The court notes that while the magistrate received the note, there is no evidence of a formal written complaint filed by the magistrate. The court therefore concludes that the pre‑condition for cognizance was not satisfied, rendering the prosecution void ab initio. Consequently, the High Court issues an order quashing the criminal proceedings and directing the release of the accused from custody.

This outcome illustrates that when the core issue is a jurisdictional defect rooted in the statutory requirement of a written complaint, the remedy lies not in contesting the factual allegations at trial but in invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court through a criminal revision. The procedural route ensures that the accused’s rights are protected against prosecutions that lack a valid legal foundation, and it underscores the importance of adhering to the mandatory pre‑conditions prescribed by law before a court can lawfully take cognizance of an offence.

Question: Does the absence of a formal written complaint by the magistrate deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the false‑statement offence?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the senior revenue clerk sent a note marked “for information only” to the district magistrate and that the magistrate merely forwarded the note to the investigating agency. No separate written complaint was ever filed by the magistrate, who is the public servant concerned under the procedural provision that governs offences of false statement to a public servant. The law requires that a court may acquire jurisdiction only after a written complaint has been lodged by the public servant or a subordinate. Because the magistrate never executed that statutory step, the trial court lacked the foundational authority to initiate proceedings. The prosecution’s reliance on the police charge‑sheet does not cure the defect, as the charge‑sheet is a document prepared by the investigating agency and cannot substitute for the mandatory complaint. The consequence of this omission is that any order of cognizance issued by the trial court is ultra vires, rendering the subsequent conviction vulnerable to reversal on jurisdictional grounds. For the accused, this means that the conviction rests on a procedural nullity rather than on a substantive finding of guilt, and the defence can seek quashing of the entire proceeding. The complainant, represented by the magistrate’s office, can argue that the procedural safeguard exists to prevent frivolous prosecutions against public officials. The investigating agency, having prepared a charge‑sheet without the requisite complaint, may be called to explain its departure from the statutory requirement. Ultimately, the High Court reviewing the matter will focus on whether the pre‑condition of a written complaint was satisfied, and if not, it will likely declare the trial court’s jurisdiction defective. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would emphasize this jurisdictional defect as the cornerstone of the revision petition, seeking an order that nullifies the conviction and directs the release of the accused.

Question: What is the effect of a police charge‑sheet on the statutory requirement of a written complaint by the public servant concerned in this context?

Answer: The police charge‑sheet is an investigative document that records the agency’s findings and the alleged offences, but it does not possess the legal character of a complaint filed by the public servant. The statutory framework expressly mandates that a written complaint must originate from the public servant who is the intended recipient of the false statement, or from a subordinate to whom that public servant is subordinate. Because the magistrate never authored such a complaint, the charge‑sheet cannot fill the statutory gap. The effect of this mismatch is that the prosecution proceeds without a valid foundation, making the entire case vulnerable to dismissal on procedural grounds. In the present facts, the clerk’s note was forwarded by the magistrate as an informational piece, and the police, after concluding that the allegations were fabricated, nonetheless prepared a charge‑sheet and moved forward with prosecution. This step bypasses the mandatory pre‑condition and creates a jurisdictional flaw that cannot be cured by later judicial scrutiny of the evidence. For the accused, the existence of a charge‑sheet does not create liability if the prerequisite complaint is absent; instead, it highlights the procedural overreach of the investigating agency. The prosecution may argue that the charge‑sheet reflects the agency’s belief that the matter is fit for trial, but the law requires a specific complaint to trigger cognizance. The High Court, when assessing the revision, will examine the nature of the charge‑sheet and confirm that it is not a substitute for a statutory complaint. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would point out that jurisprudence consistently treats the charge‑sheet as an evidentiary document, not as a complaint, and therefore the trial court’s acceptance of it was a legal error that warrants quashing of the proceedings.

Question: How does the procedural defect concerning the complaint requirement influence the appropriate remedy for the accused?

Answer: When a procedural defect strikes at the core of jurisdiction, the remedy must address the defect rather than the merits of the case. In this scenario, the failure to produce a written complaint by the magistrate means that the trial court never acquired lawful authority to try the accused. Consequently, the appropriate remedy is a higher‑court intervention that can set aside the judgment on jurisdictional grounds. The criminal revision petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court is the statutory vehicle designed for such circumstances. It allows the accused to challenge the legality of the lower court’s order without having to relitigate the factual matrix. The revision petition will request that the High Court declare the trial court’s cognizance ultra vires, quash the conviction, and order the release of the accused from custody. Because the defect is procedural, the High Court can grant relief even after the trial court has rendered a verdict, as the defect renders the entire proceeding void ab initio. For the prosecution, the remedy would be limited to filing a counter‑petition or appealing the High Court’s order, but the lack of a statutory complaint remains a strong barrier. The investigating agency may be directed to return the charge‑sheet and to refrain from further action unless a proper complaint is filed. The practical implication for the accused is immediate release and removal of the criminal record, while the complainant’s office may need to reassess its internal procedures for forwarding information. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would craft the revision petition to emphasize that the jurisdictional defect is fatal and that the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is expressly empowered to correct such errors, seeking an order of quashing and a declaration of the void nature of the proceedings.

Question: What role does the revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court play in correcting the jurisdictional error and what relief can it seek?

Answer: The revision petition serves as a supervisory instrument that enables a higher court to examine whether a subordinate court has acted within its jurisdiction. In the present case, the petition will focus on the absence of a written complaint by the magistrate, which is a mandatory pre‑condition for cognizance of the false‑statement offence. By filing the revision, the accused asks the High Court to scrutinize the procedural record, including the original note, the magistrate’s forwarding action, the police investigation report, and the charge‑sheet. The High Court’s power includes the authority to quash proceedings that are tainted by jurisdictional defects, to set aside convictions, and to direct the release of persons held in custody. The relief sought in the petition will therefore include an order declaring that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, an order quashing the conviction and sentence, and a directive for the immediate release of the accused. Additionally, the petition may request a declaration that the prosecution is barred until a valid written complaint is filed, thereby preventing future attempts to revive the case on the same factual basis. The practical effect of such relief is the restoration of the accused’s liberty and the erasure of the criminal stigma. For the prosecution, the High Court’s intervention may compel a reassessment of the procedural requirements before initiating any similar case. The investigating agency may be instructed to archive the charge‑sheet as void. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would advise that the revision petition must be meticulously drafted to highlight the statutory requirement, cite comparative decisions, and request a writ of certiorari or an order of quashing, ensuring that the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is fully invoked to correct the error.

Question: How might the involvement of a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court provide comparative jurisprudence that strengthens the accused’s arguments?

Answer: The counsel practicing before Chandigarh High Court can draw upon a body of decisions that have consistently held that a written complaint by the public servant is indispensable for cognizance of offences involving false statements. By presenting analogous rulings from that jurisdiction, the lawyer can demonstrate that the principle is not confined to a single High Court but enjoys pan‑regional acceptance. The comparative jurisprudence can be used to reinforce the argument that the police charge‑sheet cannot substitute for a statutory complaint, and that any court proceeding without such a complaint is ultra vires. The lawyer will cite cases where the High Court dismissed prosecutions on the ground of missing complaint, emphasizing the uniformity of legal reasoning across jurisdictions. This comparative approach bolsters the revision petition before Punjab and Haryana High Court by showing that the legal issue has been resolved elsewhere in the same manner, thereby persuading the bench to follow the established line. Moreover, the lawyer can highlight procedural safeguards articulated in Chandigarh High Court judgments, such as the need for clear documentation of the complaint and the requirement that the complaint be made by the public servant or a subordinate. The practical implication is that the accused’s petition gains added credibility, and the court is more likely to view the jurisdictional defect as fatal. The involvement of lawyers in Chandigarh High Court also signals that the accused has sought comprehensive legal advice, strengthening the overall presentation of the case. Consequently, the High Court may be inclined to grant the relief sought, namely quashing the conviction and ordering the release of the accused, on the basis of a well‑supported legal precedent.

Question: Why is a criminal revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the appropriate forum for challenging the conviction, rather than pursuing a direct appeal to a higher appellate court?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the clerk was convicted by a trial court after the investigating agency filed a charge‑sheet despite the absence of a statutory written complaint by the magistrate, who is the public servant concerned. This omission is a jurisdictional defect that strikes at the very foundation of the trial court’s power to take cognizance of the offence. Under the procedural code, when a question of jurisdiction arises, the appropriate remedy is a criminal revision, which is expressly vested in the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the subordinate courts. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, being the apex court for the district where the trial was conducted, possesses supervisory jurisdiction to examine whether the lower court acted within its legal limits. A direct appeal would be premised on the existence of a valid conviction that can be reviewed on merits; however, the conviction itself is void because the pre‑condition of a written complaint was never satisfied. Consequently, the High Court is the only forum that can quash the proceedings ab initio. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that the revision petition is drafted with precise reference to the jurisdictional bar, the procedural lapse, and the relevant precedents that underscore the necessity of a complaint by the public servant. The lawyer will structure the petition to invoke the High Court’s power to issue a writ of certiorari or an order of quashing, thereby restoring the clerk’s liberty and nullifying the conviction. This route also avoids the unnecessary expenditure of time and resources that would be incurred by an appeal that is likely to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, reinforcing why the revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court is the correct procedural avenue.

Question: In what way does the statutory requirement of a written complaint by the public servant render a purely factual defence ineffective at the trial stage?

Answer: The clerk’s factual defence centred on denying the alleged falsity of his note and asserting that the allegations were true. While such a defence is essential in a typical criminal trial, the present case is dominated by a procedural defect: the law mandates that a court may only take cognizance of offences like false statements to a public servant when a written complaint is lodged by that public servant. Because the magistrate never filed such a complaint, the trial court lacked jurisdiction from the outset. Jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by disputing the truth of the facts; they are fatal to the proceeding irrespective of the evidence presented. The trial court’s authority to entertain the case evaporates the moment the statutory pre‑condition is unmet, making any factual argument moot. Moreover, the investigating agency’s charge‑sheet cannot substitute for the required complaint, and the clerk’s attempt to argue that the note was “for information only” does not satisfy the legal test. As a result, the factual defence, no matter how robust, cannot overcome the procedural barrier. This explains why the clerk must focus on a higher‑court remedy that addresses the jurisdictional flaw rather than persisting with a factual defence at trial. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court have observed similar scenarios where courts have dismissed factual contentions because the lack of a complaint rendered the entire prosecution void. Hence, the strategic shift from factual defence to a jurisdictional challenge is essential for obtaining relief.

Question: Why might the accused seek the assistance of a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, and how does comparative jurisprudence from that court influence the revision strategy?

Answer: Although the primary petition will be filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the accused may consult a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court to gain insight into how another High Court within the same jurisdictional region has interpreted the requirement of a written complaint. The Chandigarh High Court, although not the forum for the revision, has rendered several decisions affirming that a complaint must be made by the public servant himself or a subordinate, and that police‑prepared documents cannot satisfy this condition. By engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, the accused can obtain persuasive authority and nuanced arguments that have been successful in analogous cases. This comparative jurisprudence can be woven into the revision petition to demonstrate a consistent judicial approach across High Courts, thereby strengthening the claim that the trial court’s cognizance was ultra vires. The lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can also advise on the drafting style, citation of relevant judgments, and the articulation of the jurisdictional defect, ensuring that the petition aligns with prevailing legal reasoning. Such counsel may also help anticipate counter‑arguments from the prosecution, who might rely on local precedents that differ. By integrating the insights from lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, the revision petition becomes more robust, showing that the legal principle is not confined to a single bench but enjoys broader acceptance, which can persuade the Punjab and Haryana High Court to grant the sought quashing order.

Question: What procedural steps and evidentiary elements must the revision petition contain to persuade the Punjab and Haryana High Court to quash the conviction, and what relief can the clerk realistically expect?

Answer: The revision petition must commence with a concise statement of facts, highlighting the clerk’s original note, its classification as “for information only,” the magistrate’s receipt of the note, and the subsequent failure to file a written complaint. It should attach the original note, the magistrate’s forwarding memo, the police investigation report, and the charge‑sheet to demonstrate the absence of a statutory complaint. The petition must then articulate the legal ground: the violation of the mandatory pre‑condition that a written complaint by the public servant is indispensable for cognizance of the offence. Citing decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court that have struck down convictions on similar grounds, the petition should argue that the trial court acted without jurisdiction, rendering the conviction void ab initio. Engaging lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that the petition is framed in accordance with the High Court’s procedural preferences, including proper verification, annexures, and prayer clauses. The relief sought should be specific: an order quashing the criminal proceedings, directing the release of the clerk from custody, and directing the trial court to dismiss the charge‑sheet. While the petition cannot guarantee a reversal of the conviction, a successful quash will nullify the judgment and restore the clerk’s liberty, effectively erasing the criminal record. Additionally, the petition may request that the investigating agency be directed to refrain from any further prosecution on the same facts. By meticulously presenting the jurisdictional defect and supporting it with comparative authority, the revision petition stands a strong chance of obtaining the desired quashing order from the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Question: How can the accused challenge the jurisdictional defect arising from the absence of a written complaint by the magistrate, and what procedural steps must a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court take to obtain a quashing order?

Answer: The cornerstone of the accused’s defence is the statutory pre‑condition that a court may take cognizance of a false‑statement offence only after a written complaint is lodged by the public servant concerned. In the present facts, the senior revenue clerk’s note to the district magistrate was expressly marked “for information only” and was merely transmitted through a subordinate officer. No formal complaint was ever filed by the magistrate, nor did the magistrate sign any document indicating that he was seeking redress. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court therefore begins by securing the complete docket from the trial court, including the FIR, the police charge‑sheet, the magistrate’s register, and any forwarding letters. The lawyer must also obtain the original note and the accompanying memorandum that the magistrate received, because these will demonstrate the absence of a complaint. Once the record is assembled, the next procedural step is to file a criminal revision petition under the appropriate provision of the Criminal Procedure Code, invoking the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over jurisdictional defects. The petition should specifically allege that the trial court acted ultra vires by taking cognizance without a statutory complaint, and it must pray for a writ of certiorari or an order of quashing the proceedings. In support, the lawyer should cite precedent from the Supreme Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court that has consistently held that a police‑prepared charge‑sheet cannot substitute for a complaint by the public servant. The petition must also request immediate release of the accused from custody, arguing that continued detention is unlawful in the absence of a valid charge. Throughout the drafting, the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must anticipate the prosecution’s possible counter‑argument that the magistrate’s forwarding of the note amounted to a complaint; therefore, the petition should attach affidavits from the clerk and any senior officials confirming the note’s informational character. Finally, the lawyer should be prepared to argue before the bench that the jurisdictional defect is a question of law that can be raised at any stage, and that the High Court’s power to quash the proceedings is indispensable to protect the accused’s liberty and to uphold the procedural safeguards embedded in the criminal justice system.

Question: Which evidentiary documents should be scrutinised to establish that the original note was merely informational and not a formal complaint, and how can lawyers in Chandigarh High Court use these documents to undermine the prosecution’s charge‑sheet?

Answer: The evidentiary foundation for demonstrating the note’s informational nature lies in the original handwritten communication, the covering memorandum, and the chain‑of‑custody records maintained by the magistrate’s office. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court must first obtain certified copies of the clerk’s note, noting its heading, the phrase “for information only,” and the absence of any request for investigation or punitive action. The covering memorandum, signed by the subordinate revenue officer, should be examined for language that merely forwards the note without adding any allegation of complaint. Additionally, the magistrate’s register entry, which records receipt of the note, often contains a brief description of the document’s purpose; if it reflects an informational receipt, it bolsters the defence. The police report and the internal “calendar” prepared by the investigating agency are also critical, as they may reveal that the police treated the note as a tip rather than a formal complaint. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court can file a detailed annexure to the revision petition, attaching these documents and highlighting the lack of any statutory complaint language, such as a request for action, a signature of the magistrate as complainant, or a reference to the relevant procedural provision. By juxtaposing the note with the charge‑sheet, the counsel can argue that the prosecution has fabricated a basis for jurisdiction, effectively converting an informational memo into a prosecutable complaint. Moreover, the lawyers should seek to cross‑examine the police officer who prepared the charge‑sheet, using the documentary evidence to demonstrate that the officer was aware of the note’s status and yet proceeded to file a charge‑sheet, thereby breaching the statutory requirement. The counsel may also request the High Court to direct the investigating agency to produce any communication from the magistrate that could be construed as a complaint; the absence of such communication will further erode the prosecution’s case. In sum, by meticulously analysing the original note, the forwarding memorandum, the magistrate’s register, and the police documentation, lawyers in Chandigarh High Court can construct a factual matrix that shows the prosecution’s reliance on a non‑existent complaint, rendering the charge‑sheet legally infirm and supporting a petition for quashing the proceedings.

Question: What are the risks associated with the accused remaining in custody while the revision petition is pending, and what interim relief strategies can be employed to mitigate these risks?

Answer: Continued detention of the accused poses several strategic and humanitarian risks. First, custody undermines the presumption of innocence and may prejudice the accused’s ability to coordinate with counsel, especially when the High Court is reviewing jurisdictional defects. Second, the psychological and physical impact of incarceration can impair the accused’s capacity to give accurate testimony or to assist in gathering documentary evidence, such as affidavits from witnesses who may be reluctant to appear before a detained individual. Third, the prosecution may use the fact of custody to argue that the accused is a flight risk, thereby justifying denial of bail in subsequent applications. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court should therefore move promptly for an interim order of bail or, alternatively, for a stay of the conviction and sentence pending the outcome of the revision. The interim relief petition must emphasise that the jurisdictional defect is a question of law, rendering the conviction void ab initio, and that no substantive evidence has been adjudicated. The counsel should attach the revision petition as an annexure, highlighting that the High Court’s jurisdiction to quash the proceedings exists precisely to prevent the continuation of an unlawful prosecution. Additionally, the lawyer can invoke the principle of liberty as a fundamental right, arguing that continued custody without a valid legal basis violates constitutional guarantees. If bail is denied, the counsel may seek a direction for the accused’s release on personal bond, citing the lack of any proven offence and the absence of a complaint. The lawyer should also request that the High Court order the investigating agency to preserve all evidence, including the original note and police records, to prevent tampering while the accused is out of custody. By securing interim relief, the accused’s liberty is restored, the risk of prejudice is minimised, and the High Court is afforded a clearer procedural landscape to adjudicate the jurisdictional issue without the cloud of ongoing detention.

Question: How can the prosecution’s reliance on the police “calendar” and internal notes be effectively contested, and what arguments can a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court raise to show that such documents cannot satisfy the statutory pre‑condition of a written complaint?

Answer: The prosecution’s case hinges on the assertion that the police “calendar” and internal notes constitute a sufficient written complaint by the public servant concerned. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must dismantle this assertion by first establishing the legal definition of a “written complaint” under the relevant procedural provision, which requires a document signed or authorized by the public servant himself or a subordinate acting on his behalf. The “calendar,” being an internal police log, is a procedural record of the investigation and lacks any signature or endorsement from the magistrate. Likewise, internal notes prepared by investigating officers are administrative tools, not formal complaints. The counsel should therefore file a detailed objection, attaching certified copies of the calendar and notes, and highlighting the absence of any magistrate’s signature, stamp, or directive. The argument must stress that the statutory pre‑condition is not satisfied by any document that merely records the receipt of information; it demands an affirmative act by the public servant to initiate criminal proceedings. Moreover, the lawyer can cite jurisprudence from the Punjab and Haryana High Court that has consistently rejected police‑generated documents as substitutes for a statutory complaint, emphasizing that allowing such a substitution would erode the safeguard intended by the legislature to prevent frivolous prosecutions. The counsel should also request that the High Court direct the prosecution to produce any original complaint filed by the magistrate; the failure to do so will confirm the deficiency. In addition, the lawyer can argue that the reliance on the calendar and internal notes violates the principle of fair trial, as the accused is being prosecuted on the basis of documents that were never intended to serve as a complaint and were not disclosed to the defence at the time of trial. By foregrounding these points, the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court can persuade the bench that the prosecution’s evidence is legally insufficient, thereby supporting the revision petition’s request for quashing the proceedings and securing the accused’s release.