JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application in revision. One Raja Ram asks this Court to set aside an order passed by the Judge of Mainpuri on 10th March 1914. The application does not state whether the Judge of Mainpuri passed the order as a District Judge or Sessions Judge. I have read the order which the applicant asks me to set aside and I have heard a very long and strenuous argument made by the learned counsel for Raja Ram. The order as it stands is very clear. It runs as follows: “I hereby complain against Raja Ram, son of Ganga Ram, Brahman of Kachal that he, on 15th July 1912, filed two false and forged bonds in Suit No. 337 of 1912 (Raja Ram v. Babna) in the Court of Small Causes, Mainpuri, and thereby committed an offence under Ss. 471/467, I.P.C., and S. 209, I.P.C. The papers will be sent to the District Magistrate with the request that they be made over to a competent Court for disposal.” This document falls within the definition of the word “complaint” as given in Section 4(h) of the Cr PC. 2. It is an allegation made in writing to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action under the Code of Criminal Procedure that some person known and mentioned in the complaint has committed the ofence. It is not a sanction given under Section 195 or under Section 476 of the Cr PC. The Judge was a Court to which the Munsif of Mainpuri was Sub-ordinate. He was acting within his jurisdiction in making the complaint and it has not been shown to me that in taking such action he was acting with material irregularity. The order is not open to revision. I dismiss this application with costs. The stay order is removed.