I presume the case is filed under Section 188 of the IPC. If so, this section addresses the acts of a 'public servant' and those found guilty under it. I have a query regarding whether the complainant can be lawfully recognized as a 'public servant' and whether Mr. Siddartha can be tried under this section.
Central Government Act
Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code
188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. — 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 a fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation. — It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration: An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of a riot. A has committed the offense defined in this section.