Judgment :- This is an application filed by the petitioner to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.105 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station, Thoothukudi District. 2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:- On 22.4.2003 the respondent registered a case in Crime No.105 of 2003 against the petitioner for offences under Sections 3,4 and 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that when he searched the house of the petitioner, he found allopathy medicines in the house and therefore the petitioner committed the offences as mentioned above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Sub Inspector of Police has no power to seize any medicinal products and prosecute an offence committed under 'the Act'. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no averment that the petitioner practiced medicines or was selling any medicines in the said premises. Under Section 10 of the said Act, no court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by the competent authority or any officer authorized in this behalf by the competent authority. 5. Section 2(a) defines "competent authority", according to which, "competent authority" means any authority, officer or person appointed by the Government, by notification, to perform the functions of the competent authority under this Act and different competent authority may be appointed for different areas. Admittedly, the Sub Inspector of Police, who lodged the F.I.R is not the competent authority and he has no power to inspect or seize the materials. Admittedly, no notification is issued by the Government, authorizing any Sub Inspector of Police as authorized person to perform the functions of the competent authority. Section 10 is a bar for taking cognizance of an offence under this Act unless a complaint is made by the competent authority. 6. In this case it is alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that to settle a score of private enmity, the Sub Inspector of Police has filed this case maliciously without jurisdiction. The way in which the F.I.R has been registered and the petitioner has been prosecuted shows that the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be simply brushed aside as one without substance. The way in which the F.I.R has been registered and the petitioner has been prosecuted shows that the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be simply brushed aside as one without substance. The Sub Inspector of Police has acted high handedly and unnecessarily without jurisdiction to register a case against the petitioner and to seize the alleged allopathy drugs. In the above circumstances, the F.I.R in Crime No.105 of 2003 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. This Crl. O.P is allowed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P is closed.