Judgment L. P. N. Shahdeo, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the institution of the Information Report being Golmuri P, S. Case No.77/87 corresponding to G. R. Case No.624-A of 1987. 2. It appears that proceeding under Sec.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 Code vide)Annexure-1 which was allowed and that proceeding under Sec.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 under Sec.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. Section 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 Sec.195 of the Code and, therefore, the initiation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is bad and ab initio. 7. The next point also worth consideration. Therefore, apparently there is violation of the requirements of Sec.195 of the Code and, therefore, the initiation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is bad and ab initio. 7. The next point also worth consideration. The order which was promulgated under Sec.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 under Sec.145 of the Code. In substance, there was no any order promulgated under Sec.145 of the code which was pending at the time when the F.1. R. of the present case was instituted. Therefore, lodging of the F. I. R. under Sec.188 of the Indian penal Code seems to be based wholly on erroneous tacts. 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. Application allowed.