The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7668 7669 & 7691 ot 2025 COMMON ORDER I have heard Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel argued on behalf of Mr. B.Vamsidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Mr. Sama Sandheep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Medical Council appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. Since the contentions raised. the issues requiring consideration, and the questions of law rnvolved in these matters are substantially analogous, all the petitions were heard together and are accordingly being disposed of by this common order

3. Criminal Petition No.7669 of 2025 is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS') for quashment of proceedings in Crime No.393 of 2025 on the file of the Police Station, KPHB Colony, Cyberabad District against the petitioner/accused. Criminal Petition No.7691 of 2025 is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashment of proceedings in Crime No.222 of 2025 on the 2 NIR, ] ',.._ , )6b9,769r&7668 ?025 file of the Police Station, Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy District against the petitioner/accused. Criminal Petition No.766 8 of 2025 is filed unde r Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashment of proceedings in Crime l\o 342 of 2OZ5 on the file of the Police Station, Sangareddy Rural, Sar(tareddy District against the petitioner/accused.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.05.2025 re Respondent No.2/Telangana Medical Council (for short 'theTt/lC )/de facto complarnant conducted a surprise inspection of the Clinrcs run by the petitioners/accused in Cyberabad and Sangareddy. lt war; ,rlteged that the petitioners were practicing allopathic medicine without lossessing the requisite qualifications. Based on the inspection, the l-trrC, through its Registrar and Vigilance Officer, lodged a complaint alk:ging that the petitioners were administering lV fluids, injections, and a lc,rathic drugs in violation of Rule 8(2)(9) of the Andhra Pradesh Arledic:,i louncil Rules, 2013 (APMCR); Section 20(ii) read with Telangana Medicirt practltioners Registration Act, 1968(TMPR Act), Sections 34 of the \rtional Medicat Commission Act (NMCA); and Sections 318(4) and )i9(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) Consequenily, fl.e related crimes were registered against the petitioners.

5. Learned Senror Counsel appearing for the petitror,:rs contended that the registration of crimes without conducting any prr:lirninary enquiry -7 3 NTR,] cRLPs 7669,7691&;/668 2025 is ex facie an abuse of process. He further submitted that even as per the contents of the complaint, the petitioners are duly qualified BAMS degree holders, having valid registratron with the Government of Telangana, Board of lndian lvledicine, and the National Commission for lndian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (NCISM Act, 2020) Their clinics are duly registered, and they have undergone rnternships at Government Hospitals, thereby gainrng practical chnjcal experience. lt was emphasized that the petitioners have never represented themselves as MBBS doctors. Rather, they are engaged in legally permissible medical practice which stands protected under Section 17(3)(b) of the lndian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (IMCC Act, 1970) Learned Counsel further relied on the Notification issued by the Central Council of lndian Medicine (CCIM) in 1996 and the Ayush Memorandum dated 30.03.2017, both of which permitted Ayurvedic practitioners to practice modern scientific medicine to a limited extent. He also contended that no complaint has been ftled by an authorlzed officer under Section 50 of the NCISM Act, 202O. and that the TMC has no suo motu power under Rule B(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Rules, 2013 (APMC Rules). Thus, there exists a clear procedural irregularity. Moreover, the complaint lacks particulars regarding prescriptions or instances of impersonation, which are necessary to invoke Sections 318 and 319 of the BNS. lt was further argued that the qomplaint is motivated, intended to suppress Ayush practitioners, and to 4 N-I R,J cF,-:\ ,669. /691&7668 202 5 monopolize the practice of allopathic medicine. Accrrrdrngly, the registration of crimes against the petitioners is illegal haseless, and motivated. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that a sirnilar rssue is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIt tndia lnrlian Medicine Graduates Association v Delhi Medical Association & Cttl,ers (SLP (C) No.2614512016), where an interim direction has been ist;ur-.d restraining coercive action against persons practicing the integrarted system of medicine pursuant to degrees or diplomas awarded b 7 recognized Universities. Reliance was also placed on the decisions rn (i) S. Arockia Vargheese v. Sub-lnspector of Police, Sudhamalli Police Statnn - 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 5560; (ii) f N. Siddha Medical Graduale:; Association v. lndian Medical Association - 2011 SCC Online ltlad 21', and (iii) Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and Others v. State of Punjab and Ollrers - (1998) 7 SCC 579. On these grounds, it was prayed that the :rr;ceedings be quashed

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2fl-NllC refuted the submissions of the petitioners. He argued that the petitioners, though not qualified in allopathic medicine, were nonetheless practrcing and prescribing allopathic drugs in their clinics, which constitutes an illegal practice amounting to quackery. lt was further contended that the legal position is well settled that persons holding qualificati,. ns in lndian systems of medicine are not entitled to practice or pres;cr ibe allopathic t 7 5 NTR,J CRLPS 7669,7691&7558 202s medicine. The TMC, being the comPetent authorrty, is empowered to initiate prosecution. The petitioners' argument that respondent No.2 ought to have reported the matter to the National Commisston for lndian System of Medicine, which alone could act under the NCISM Act, was ternied implausible, since the restriction under Section 50 of the Act apphes only to complaints under the NCISM Act itself, and does not curtail the TMC's authority to lodge complaints under other applicable laws. lt was further argued that the privilege available to registered practitioners under the Telangana Medical Practitioners Regrstration Act, 1968 amended in 2013(TMPR Act) extends only to the field of medicine in which they are qualified, and cannot be stretched to permit them to practice allopathy. Counsel relied upon the decision of the Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and others v. The State of Punjab - (1998) 7 SCC 579, as well as a judgment of the Delhi High Court, in support of this contention. As the investigation is still at a nascent stage, it was submitted that any interference would prejudice the process of law. Accordingly, dismissal of the petitions was prayed for

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor adopted the submissions advanced by counsel for respondent No. 2, and further asserted that the TMC is duly authorized under the Medical Council Rules to initiate the .proceedings. Hence, dismissal of the petitions was sought- 6 (: I NTR,J 1669,7691&1668 )025 L l have perused the materials on record and c:lnsidered the submissions of the learned counsel L Admittedly the petitioners asserts that they are q ralified BAIVIS graduates and were registered under Telangana Board ol Irrdian l\rledicine (TBIM) and the National Commission for lndian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (NCISM Act) The preliminary contest raised by th:r petitioners is that the respondent No.2iTtVlC has no authority to initiahl prosecution by lodging a police report.

10. The petitioners' prime contest is that as per Rul€, :l (7) of APMC Rules the allegations against the petitioners should h: vt: been placed before the Commissioner of Ayush, who in turn would consider and initiate the proceedings and directly lodging police report by the Respondent No.2/TMC is against the prescribed mandal()ry procedure. Further citing the authority in S.Arockia Vargheese v. ,;Ltb lnspector of Police. Sudhamalli Police Station - 2010 SCC OnLine Ma<t 5560 pleaded that the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the police not t,-, interfere with the practice of the Siddha practitioners who are he ring B.S.tr/.S qualification, either suo motu or based on some compl;rints grven by public. lf at all, there are persons, who are aggrieved by the conduct of such medical practitioners, they have to petition the Tarrilnadu Siddha Medical Council or the Director of Health Services and the rnterference of the police in such mafters would demoralise the qualified practitioners of 7 7 NTR,J CRLP5 7669 769l&7568 2025 the lndian Systems of Medicine, Further referred lo Tamilnadu Stale Medical Graduates Association (supra) and pleaded that the High Court of [\Iadras in this matter considering various aspects observed that medical professionals must be saved from unauthorised complaints of negligence or malpractices and safeguard should be made No blanket permissions can be issued to the police to arrest or to prosecute so called quacks identified by the Indian Medical Association. 11 ln this regard, the stand of the respondent No 2 is that medical practice being State subject importing the prescriptions in the state of Tamilnadu is not proper and lodging of police report by the respondent No.2/TMC which is statutory body and it is permissible under Rule 8 (9) of the APMC Rules.

12. Before proceeding further to examine the action to be taken under TMPR Act and APMC Rules, it would be appropriate to consider the powers and functions of the committees under medical council set out under Rule 8 of the APMC Rules. The prescriptions are summarized as here under; (a) Constitution of Committees The Chairman may constitute committees consisting of 2-3 members to conduct inquiries and inspections. These Committees may inquire suo motu or on petitions, may rnspect hospitals, B NTR,J ( at; /669,7691&/668 2025 nursing homes, or institutions, with or withou: .lotice, where unethical practices are alleged, unqualified persors, quacks, or non-allopathic practitioners are found practicing nrolern medicine or prescrbing modern drugs, de-registered pract ti,:rners continue practice without surrendering their registration certificates. (b) Complaints Handling The Registrar prepares abstracts of informatron on unethical practices. as defined under Chapter Vl of lhe itdian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Eth,i,c..) Regulations,

2002. Similar procedures apply where practition€)rs of Ayurveda, Homeopathy. Unani, Naturopathy, or Siddha are found practicing modern medicine. Complaints and supporting dor:urnents may be forwarded to concerned institutions for explanation (c) Referral to Competent Authorities Non-allopathic practitioners practicing modern rnedicrne, action must be inrtiated by the Commissroner, AYUSH, vritirin 30 days, in terms of Government Memo No 89141L2197-1 dabd 17-03-1997. Similarly, chemists dispensing modern drugs on prescriptions of non-allopathic practitioners, the Council refers the matter to the Drugs lnspector/Drug Control Authority under tl.e Drugs and Cosmelrcs Act, 1940. lf no action is taken withrr 30 days, the \ 7 9 NIR,I CRLPs 7669,7691&7668 2025 matter is escalated to the Director General, Drugs Control Admin istration (d) Proceedings Agarnsl Quacks: Where unqualified persons or quacks are found practicrng modern medicine, the Council must lodge a complaint with the local police under Section 22 o'f lhe Act. lf the police fail to act, the matter shall be escalated to the Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Police Officer for enforcement.

13. A careful reading of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh lttledical Councrl Rules, 20'1 3 reveals that it contemplates five distinct situations. each with a corresponding legal mechanism for enforcement. First, where unqualified persons or quacks, having no recognized medical qualification, are found to be practicing modern medicine. ln such cases, the Medical Council is required to lodge a complaint with the local police under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Practitioners Act, 1968, together with the Rules framed there under. lf the police fail to act, the matter must be escalated to the Superintendent of Police or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer for enforcement. Second, where de-regrstered practitioners of modern medicine continue to practice without surrendering their registration certificates. Such conduct constitutes professtonal misconduct and attracts 10 NTR,J :R l, 7669,769 L&7668_2025 disciplinary actron under Rule B(2)(c) of the APMC Rulers read with the Code of Medical Ethics, 2002, by the Medical Courtctl. Where the continued practice amounts to illegal medical practice, pc,li::e intervention and penal action may also be warranted Third, where registered practitioners of modern medicttrc engage in unethical practices in violation of the prescribed professional code of conduct. ln this scenario, lhe Medical Council, upon ccnducting inquiry and inspection, is empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings, including suspension or removal from the register, u rder the lndian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Eth cs ) Regulations,

2002. Depending on the nature of the violation, the matt€,- may also be referred to the concerned institution for explanation or, il tlte misconduct amounts to a criminal offence, escalated to the police. Fourth, where non-allooathic practitioners such as thQ.:e qualified in Avurveda. Homeopathv. Unani. Naturopathv. or Siddha are found to be practicina modern medicine in contraventron of ln such cases, rrpon receipt of information from the Meciic,tl Council, the Commissioner, AYUSH, is mandated to initiate appropriate administrative and regulatory action under Government Memo No. 8914t1-2197 -1 , dated 17-03-1997. The Commissioner is bound to act within thirty days, and failure to do so is open to administrative challenge. \ 11 NTR,J CRLP5 7669,7691&7668 2025 Fifth, where chemists dlspense modem drugs on the basis of prescriptions issued by non-allopathic practitioners. ln such cases, based on the reporl of the Medical Council, proceedings are to be initiated by the Drugs lnspector or Drugs Conkol Authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which may include both regulatory and criminal measures depending on the violation. lf no action is taken within thirty days, the matter is to be escalated to the Director General, Drugs Control Adm in istration.

14. Further, the Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Mukhtiar Chand (supra) while considering a similar context, whether a person qualified the integrity course of Ayurvedic and Unani from universities are entitled to practrce and prescribe allopathic medicine has held in para Nos.20, 35, 38, 40 and 47 as follows: ''20 lt may be noted that since'level, medical and other professions'is them 26 of Fist lll [Concurrent List] of Seventh Schedule to our Constitution, both the State Legislatures and the Parliament have enacted on the sublect of medical profession Now all these systems of medicines are governed by Central Acts The lndan Medical Council Act, 1956 (which has repealed 1933 Act) regulates modern system of medicine: the lndian Medicine Central Council Act. 1970 regulates lndian medicine and The Homeopathic Central Council Act, 1973 regulates practice of Homeopathic medicine. Here we are not concerned with Homeopaths n regard to practice of allopathic medicine by a homeopath, thts Couft concluded thus. in Poonam Verma vs Ashwin Patel, (1996) a SCC 332. "A erson who does not have kno fticular s stem medicine but ractices in that s or sk l. or t.o out I dtfferentlY a charlatan." lem is a uack and a mere retender to med al knowled e I t2 ca{ , 7669,769r &7668 2025 NTR,J

35. Points 2 and 3 have some over lapping so it will be cot)v,.,niert fo d/scuss them together The right to practice any protession or to carry att any occupation trade or busness in no doubt a fundamental right guara,)lt ed under Adicle 19(1)(g) of lhe Constrtuton of lndn. But thal right is subject rc. a,ty law relatng to lhe professrcnal or technical quahfrcatons necessary tot praclang any profession or carrying on any occupalon or trade or bus/r:)::l enacted under clause 6 of Atticle 19. The regulatory measures on the exercr;( of thB nght both with regard lo standard of professional qualificalions and p|Di.ssional conduct have been applied keeping in view not only the nght of the ryte ,ical practitioners but also the nght to life and proper health care of persons nto need medical care and treatment. There can, therefore. be no comprom$e ..)t the professional standards of medical practttones With regard to et):|t ng professonal standards required to practice allopathic medicine the 195a; 1ct Lvas passed which deals also with reconstiluhon of the Medlcal Reglste/ lhus for the ftrst time an lndian Medical Register for lhe whole ol lndia can? o be maintained from 1956 ht the 1956 Act. Section 2(f) defines "medicine' ' ) mean 'modern scientifrc medtane' in all its branches and ncludes surgec/ a d abstelrics but does not include veterinary medune and surgery and lhe e;prt:sslon recognzed medical qualtficaton is defined in Section 2(h) to mean e n , of the medical qualifications ncluded in the Schedu/es to the Act.

38. For the presenl dlscuss,on the germane provision ls Secl, )n 15(2)(b)of the 1956 Act which prohibits all persons from practang modetr t;ientific medrcine in all its branches in any State except a medical practitioner ei rolled on a State Medical ReEster There are two types of regislration as l; r re State Medical Reg/ster ls concerned. Ihe firsl /s under Sectrion 25. provtst.tuzl registration for lhe purposes of training !n the approved institution and the sec.,nd rc registration Ltnder Section 15(1) The third category of regstration is t't tlle lndan Medical Reg$ter' whtch lhe Council is enjoned to maintain under Set)tion 21 for whch recognised medical qualifrcahon is a prerequisite. The pnvl-o:1t'; of persons who are enrolled on the lndian Medical Register are mentiotlec t Section 27 and include right to practice as medical practitioner in any Di:,r of lndia. 'State Medical ReESter' in contra-disbncton to 'lndian Medical ReStslgr', is maintained by the Stale Medical Council which B not constiuted Lrn.te 1956 Act but is constituted under any law for the ttme berng n force n any ,S'a, ? so a/so a Stale Medtcal Regster is mantained not under 1956 Act but un1(' any law for the time being u) force in any State regula ng the registratrct f practitioners of I { 13 NTR,] CRtPs 7559.7691&7568 202s medicine. lt ts thus posstble that n any State. the law relating to registration of practitioners of modern scentific medicne may enable a person to be enrolled on the basis of the qualltcatons other than the'recognised medical qualification' which is a pre-requsite only for being enrolled on lndian Medical Register but not for registratton in a State Medical regBter. Even under the 1956 Act, 'recognized medical qualification' B sufficient for lhat purpose. That does not mean that tt is indispensably essentla/. Persons holding 'recognised medical qualification' cannot be denod registration in any State Medical Register. But the same cannot be insisted upon for registrahon on a Stale Medrcal Register However, a person registered in a State Medical Register cannot be enrolled on lndian Medrcal Reg,sler unless he possesses 'recognized medical qualification'. This follows from a combned reading of Sections 15(1), 21(1) and 23. So by wftue of such qualifications as prescnbed n a State Act and on being registered /n a Stale Medcal ReEsler, a person wi be entitled to practoe allopathic medicine under Sectnn 15(2)(b) of lhe 1956 Act. 40 We have perused the Bombay Medical Act, 1912, Bihar and Orissa Medical Act, 1916, Punjab Medtcal ReEstration Act 1916, Rajasthan Medical Act 1952 and Maharashtra Medical Counc Act, 1965which regulate maintenance of registers of medical practitrcners and the entitlement. to practice allopathic medicne Under those Acts Stale Medical Registers are maintained. Section 7(3) of the Bombay Act of 1912, enabled the Provincial Government, after consulting lhe State medrcal council, to permit the registration of any person who was actually practicing medicine in Bombay Presidency before 25th June, 1912, lhls seems to be the only case of regstration without requisite qualificalnn. Fufther persons possessing AyuNtdya Vtsharad of the Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth of Poona, oblained during the years 1921-1935 (which was included in the Schedule lo that Act on 31st September. 2939 pursuant to Notificatrcn No. 3020/33 dated 12 9.1939) were entitled to be registered in the State Medical Regisler: thls /s the only Ayurvedic qualification on the basis of which persons were eligible to be regstered on the S|ate Medical Register in Maharashtra; fufther with regard to rural areas, the prohbition to practice allopathic medicne under that Act dtd not apply provided a person had commenced practice in any village in the rural area prior to 1912. None of the petitioners has claimed benefit of these exceptions. We could not ftnd any other provision which enables a person. olher than lhose possess/ng qualification prescribed in the Schedules to the Acts. to be reEstered on the State Medical Register to practice allopathic T4 NTR,] ( rit P 7669../691&7668 2025 medicine. So it can be obseNed that f any Slale law relalt]g to registration of Medical practtlDners permits practice of allopathc medi(iie on the basis ol degree in integrated medicines the bar n Section 15(2)(b,t:f the 1956 Act wi not apply. 47 A harmonnus readng of Sect,on 15 of 1956 Act and Sec :'n 17 of 1970 Act leAds lo the conclusion that there is no scope for a person enrolled on fhe State Reaister ot lndan medicine or Central Reqster of lndian ti,le,licite to practise n-o490 clenltIlc mediane in any of tts branches unless thirt Berso! jq!LsO enrolled on a State Medtc lRe ter wlhn the meanin of 1l)51; Act.

15. ln the light of the above legal frame work and settle:d position of law it is clear that the registered practitioners of lndian tvle Jicine are not entitled to prescribe allopathic medictne and sucf practice is impermissible. Nonetheless, Rule 8 of the APMC Rules pr,.:scrrbes that rn fhe cases involving unqualified persons or quacks i e., ind 'riduals without any recognized qualification in medicine and not registered, the Medical Council is bound to file a criminal complaint with the po rc.,:. Whereas, in the present matter on hand, the allegalion of the Respon'7ent No.UTMC is that the petitioners who are registered practitioners unde'. the system of lndian Medicine are prescribing modern system ()f rtedicine. f his imputation is taken as it is, the same would not quality tite category of quackery, but rather under the fourth situation identifiec ;',bove, namely, non-allopathic practitioners practicing modern medicin,:. As such, the prescribed course of action under the Telangana Medrcal Practitioners Registration Act, 1968, and the Andhra Pradesh Medi:;al council rules should be upon information, the Commissioner, AYUSU s the competent \ t 7 15 cRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025 NTR,) authority to take up further course of action. ln effect, it shall be held that the Respondent No.2/TMC directly lodging police repo( for prosecution is impermissible under the prescribed Rules. 16, The other allegation imputation against the petitioners is under sections 34 of the National lVledical Commissions Act, 2019(NMC Act).

34. Bar to practice.-(1) No person other than a person who E enrolled n the State Register or the National Reglster, as the case may be, shall- (a) be allowed to practrce medane as a qualified medical practitioner; (b) hold otfice as a physaan or surgeon or any other office. by whatever name called, which is meant to be held by a physician or surgeon, (c) be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness ceftificate or any other ceftificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner. (d) be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any coui of law as an expeft under section 45 of the lndan Evtdence Act 1872 (1 ot 1872) on any matter relating to medicine: Provided that the Commrssion shall submit a list of such medical professionals to the Central Government in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided fudher that a foreign atizen who is enrolled in his country as a medical practitioner n accordance with the law regulating the registration of medical practitioners in that country may be permtted temporary registration in lndia for such period and in such manner as may be specified by the regulations. (2) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term whrch may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to live lakh rupees or with both.

17. Section 31 of the NMC Act prescribes National Register and State Register of modern Scientific System of [V'ledicine and Section 32(5) the National Commission for Indian System of Medicines Act, 2020(NCISM .t b NTR,,] a RiP 7669.;/69r&7668 2025 Act), prescribes that every State Medical Council sha ll maintain and regularly update the State Register in the specifred elect'orric format and supply a physical copy of the same to the Board ,-,f Ethics and Registration for lndian System of Medrcine within three rnonths of the commencement of this Act. This position is prima facle nraking clear that the Medical Council has to maintain distinct registers al National and State level for the practitioners of modern scientific medrc,ne and lndian System of lt/edicine '18. Thus the privileges pointed to by the petitioners shall also require examination and whether the privileges and the statute wlr.rld come to the aid of petitioners' case is an aspect to be considered. Ther reference of the petitioners that the notifications of Central Governnrent of lndian Medicine, office memorandum which prescribe that lhe allopathic medicine to the extent of training received by them in rrodern medicine would insulate the petitioners from prescribing/practi<; ing allopathic system of medicine would be another aspect which requrres examination.

19. Howsoever, Section 54 of the NMC Act requires m3r'tion here. This provision prescribes that, no Court may take cognizan,, e of offences punishable under the Act except upon a written complair t made by an authorized officer ol the National Medical Commission lde Ethics and Medical Registration Board, or the relevant State Mecttc'al Council. As noted earlier the prosecution proceedings were initiated upon the police 7 17 NTR,J CRLPS 7669,7691&7558 2025 report of the Respondent No.2/TtvlC. For this foundational defect, this accusation cannot be maintained

20. The other allegation against the petitioners is under sections 31g (4) and 319 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita, 2073 (BNS). To constitute an offence of Cheating, a person commit an act of deception, and fraudulent or dishonest inducement of another person, to dehver property, or to consent to the retention of property, or to do or omit an act that he would not have done or omitted but for the deception, and such act or omission causes, or is likely to cause, damage or harm to body, mind, reputation, or property. Dishonest concealment of /acts also amounts to deception. Further, Cheating by personation is an act to pretends to be another person, or knowingly substitutes one person for another, or misrepresents his own or another's identity, The primary right to lodge a police report lies with the victim/complainant who has been deceived (or whose property/security has been affected). However, since cheating and cheating by personation are cognizable offences, any person with knowledge of the offence may set the criminal law in motion by filing an FlR, upon which the police are bound to investigate. However the police report must indicate the particulars and the pima facie case. ln this view, initiation of proceedings by the Respondent No.2|TMC is ex facie acceptable, in the present police report, the particulars of the persons who are deceived and the manner of / 1B (litp NTR,,] /669,7691&/668 2025 impersonation are conspicuously absent. ln the circu -nstances, the allegation against the petitioners per se that they have prr:s;:rtbed modern scientific medicine by holding registration under ln(li,1n system of medicine alone, without some particular, would fall short rr making out a prima facie case of cheating and impersonation. 21 . lt is settled position that though under Section 5.2t1 of BNSS this Court is empowered to quash the first information repo.t to prevent the abuse of process of law or to secure ends of justice, this 1r. risdiction shall be exercised with care and caution. lt has been held in,St,lte of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others -1992 Alt? 601 and M/s Neeharika, lnfrastructure Pvt. v. The State of Maharashtra - AIR 2021 SC 1 91 I, il has been held that for quashment of first inforrration report the Court must satisfy that the F.l.R. or criminal proceedin,.ts rs frivolous, vexatious or oppressive or abuse of process of Court ancl quahsment of the F.l.R. or criminal proceedings is necessary to securr: :rnds of justice. Further the aspects whether the F.l.R. was filed with mala r;de intention or to harass or intimidate the accused; filed for political or pr:r:;onal vendetta, F.l.R. did not disclose any offence and no prima facie casa is against the accused, this can be exercised. lt is also well settled that the Court shall not conduct a detailed enquiry but contention of injustir;e or abuse of process of legal process. Y 19 NTR,] CRLPS /669,769r&7668 2025

22. ln the above noted findings, for deviating the prescribed procedure and absence of the material particulars in polnting cheating and impersonation, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in the respective crimes are liable to be and are accordingly quashed. However the rights of the Respondent No.2 are expressry reserved to proceed against the petitioners as per the prescriptions under relevant provisions and may seek prosecution with requisite particula rs/details. Accordingly, Criminat petition Nos.766B, 7669 and 7691 of 2025 are allowed SD/. SRI NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO UTY REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPYII s CTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.Tukaramji (For His Lordship kind perusal) To, '1 . The Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy 2. The lV Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-XV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kukatpally, lvledchal Malkajgiri District

3. The Station House Officer, Sangareddy Rural P.S., Sangareddy 4. The Station House Officer, KPHB Colony P.S., Cyberabad 5. The Station House Officer, Sangareddy Town P.S., Sangareddy 6 1'1 LR Copies 7. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

8. The Secretary, Advocate Association (TG) Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

9. One CC to SRl. B VAIMSHIDHAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 1 1 . Two CD Copies VSM/ R o ./ HIGH COURT DATED:02t0912025 .,..' 'a -t\ ?3sfPil6 i.r. i.. ORDER CRLP.Nos.7668, 76G9, & 7691of 2O2S ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS a) .F.&a