1. The petitioner before this Court, a Doctor by profession is aggrieved by registration of first information report i.e., FIR No.30/2015 registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Sanyogitaganj, Indore.

2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Radiologist working at Unique Diagnostic Centre since 2007 and the propertor and the owner of the said centre is Dr. D.S. Chhabra. The owner and proprietor was having a license issued under section 25 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

3. It has been further stated that on 29.12.2014 an inspection was carried out by the District Supervisory Committee and certain irregularities were noticed in respect of the Diagnostic Centre and an order was passed on 9.1.2015 by the Collector who is the appropriate authority under the Act of 1994. The petitioner has further stated that the order dated 9.1.2015 was challenged by Dr. D.S. Chhabra before this Court by filing a writ petition and the same was registered as Writ Petition No.380/2015. This Court by an order dated 22.1.2015 has set aside the order of the competent authority dated 9.1.2015. The aforesaid facts are undisputed facts.

4. The petitioner’s contention is that the FIR has been registered for an offence arising out of the same incident dated 29.12.2014 and the police is having no jurisdiction to register an FIR for offence under section 188 of the IPC. It has been further stated that the authority whose order has been violated has to take action in the matter. It has been further stated that the authority whose order has been violated has to lodge the FIR.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and another v. Jyotiraditya Scindia, reported in 2014(1) JLJ 326. She has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Ashok Agrawal v. State of M.P. in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5306/2014 decided on 28.11.2014 [2015(I) MPWN 28], and in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1021/2016 Omprakash v. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 11.3.2016 [2016 (II) MPWN 39], and her contention is that in similar circumstances FIR has been quashed in respect of an offence under section 188 of the IPC.

6. She has also argued before this Court that in respect of offences under sections 23 and 25, again a complaint has to be made by an appropriate authority and in the present case complaint has not been lodged by the appropriate authority as offence has been committed under the Act of 1999 and therefore, the entire FIR deserves to be quashed.

7. Learned Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashment of FIR. He has argued before this Court that the ingredients of section 188 of the IPC read with sections 23 and 25 of the Act of 1994 are made out and the question of interference at this stage by this Court does not arise. He has stated that there is ample material available in the case diary and the question of interference by this Court does not arise.

8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Section 188 of the IPC reads as under :-

Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant --

188. Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction,

shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;

and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety,