Judgment L.P.N.Shahdeo, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the Institution of the First Information Report being Golmuri P.S. Case No. 77187 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 624-A of 1987. 2. It appears that a proceeding u/s. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (shortly "the Code") was initiated against the petitioner and against that order the petitioner had filed a quashing application in this Court vide Annexure 1 which was allowed and that proceeding u/s. 145 of the Code was dropped by the order of the High Court dated 21-7 -1986. It appears that for committing disobedience of that order to aforesaid criminal case was instituted against the petitioner. 3. Heard Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. M.M. Pal for the State. The main argument advanced in this case is that the F.I.R. has not been lodged by competent person which is essential u/s. 195 of the Code. It was also submitted that when the main case was dropped by the High Court which had taken place earlier to the initiation of the present criminal case, there is no question of any violation of any lawful order promulgated by the competent authority. 4. After hearing the parties and on going through the record I am satisfied that both the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner has substance and must be accepted. 5. The first point which was urged is that the F.I.R. has been instituted by a public and not by a public servant as it appears from the F.I.R., Annexure I, which indicates that S. Sengupta through Mansingh (sic) Ram Das Bhatta, admittedly, he is not a public servant. The order of the Court was followed and that Court has not filed any complaint nor any F.I.R. was lodged by any officer to which that Court was subordinate. 6. Sec. 195 of the Code provides that no Court can take cognizance of the offence if it is filed not by a competent person mentioned therein. Therefore, apparently there is violation of the requirements of section 195 of the Code and, therefore, the initiation of the, criminal proceeding against the petitioner is bad and ab initio. 7. The next point is also worth consideration. Therefore, apparently there is violation of the requirements of section 195 of the Code and, therefore, the initiation of the, criminal proceeding against the petitioner is bad and ab initio. 7. The next point is also worth consideration. The order which, was promulgated u/s. 145 of the Code, was itself cancelled by the High Court by the order dated 21-7-1986, i.e. before institution of the F.I.R. of this case. Therefore, when the main case has vanished, there is no question of any violation of any lawful order promulgated u/s. 145 of the Code. In substance, there was not any order promulgated u/s. 145 of the Code which was pending at the time when the F.I.R. of the present case was instituted. Therefore, lodging of the F.I.R. u/s. 188 of the Indian Penal Code seems to be based wholly on erroneous facts. 8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this application is allowed and the criminal prosecution of the petitioner and the impugned F.I.R. are hereby quashed.