The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in cc No.'164 of 2o2s onlhe file of the Hon'ble XIV Additional Metropolitan tr,,lagistrate,Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, including any coercive action against the petitioner/Accused. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B VAMSHIDHAR REDDY, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No..1 . The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA OEVI :ADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15470 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accu ;ed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.164 of 2025 on tlr : file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at - ayathnagar, registered for the offences under Section 318(4) of Tie Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short "BNS") and Section 'l 5 3) of lndian l\4edical Council Act, 1956 (for short'the Act').

2. The case of the prosecution is that the pe,l tioner is a registered Homeopathy t\4edical Practitioner vide Registration No.7630/H/2013. lt is alleged that the petitioner i; practicing Allopathy medicine, though he is qualified in BHMS anc hat the said act of practicing allopathy medicine attracts the ofi< nces under Section 420 ot IPC and Section 15(3) of the Act

3. Heard the submissions of Sri B.Vamshidhar Re, idy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sama Sandeep Rec Jy, learned Standing Counsel for Tti4C for respondent No.2 and I ;ri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prr> ;ecutor for respondent No.1 - State ) EI'D,J Crlp.No. I 5470_2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations faced by the petitioner are that though he is a quallfied Doctor in Homeopathy, he is prescribing the medicines under Allopathy. He referred to the order, dated 02.09.2025, of the Co- ordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No.7668 of 2025 and Batch, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has quashed the proceedings against the petitioners therein.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for TI\4C has argued that a person who is qualified tn Homeopathy, cannot prescribe the medicines under Allopathy and that it is a clear violation of the regulations and is punishable for the offences under Section 318(4) of BNS and Section 15 (3) of the Act. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition

6. Perused the record

7. Since the offence alleged are under Section 318(a) of BNS, the said Section is pertinent to be referred in this context:- Sections 318(4) of BNS: "318. Cheating - ('1 ) xxx (2) xxx (3) xxx Y 1 I]ID,J ( lp.No.l5170 2025 (4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly indu;es the person deceived to deliver any property to rny person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or , ny part of a valuable security, or anything whicl- is signed or sealed, and which is capable of be ng converted into a valuable security, shall be punis;l ed with imprisonment of either description for a .r which may extend to seven years, and shall als I be liable to fine.

8. Under the Nt\rlCA and the TtrrlpR Act, no person s lall practice the modern medicine unless he is registered under th( Act for the said purpose.

9. The petitioner counsel has placed heavy reli,l lce on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex rl lurt in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and Others Vs. Sfafe of punjab atrd Othersl , wherein it was held in paragraph Nos.47 and 49 that; (47)r A harmonious reading of Section 1S of the 1)56 Act and Section 17 of the 1970 Act teads to the cotlcl t .ion that there is no scope for a person enrotted on the S ate ,ian Register of lndian Medicine or the Central Register of ln, Medicine to practice modern scientific medicie in any c, its branches unless that person rs also enrolted o, i 3 ,t. Medical Register within the meaning of the 1956 Act. (49)t The upshot of the above dr'scusslon is that I ute 2(ee) (iii) as effected from 14.05.1960 is vatid and doej not suffer from the vice of want of legislative competence nd the notifications issued by the State 1overnnrt nts thereunder are nol ultra vires the said Rute and are l= 1at. However, after sub-section (2) in Section 1S of the 1956 Act occupied the field vide Central Act 24 of 1964 with at ect from 16.06.1964, the benefit of the said Rule ano ,he notifications issued thereunder woutd be available c nly in those States where the privilege of such rigtn to practice any system of medicine is conferred 6y .he State Law under which practitioners of tndian meirc,ne ' l tOSt; Z Suprenre Court Cases 579 4 ETD.J Crlp No.15470 2025 are registered in the State, which is for the time being i1 force. The position with regard to medical practitioners of lndian medicine hotding degrees in integrated courses rs on the same plane inasmuch as if any Slate Acf recognizes thei qualification as sufficient for iegistration in the Si.afe Medical Register, the prohibition iontained in Section 1 5(2)(b) of the 1956 Act wilt not appty. . '1 0. Therefore, even according to the decision of the constitution Bench, a person qualified in a stream of medicine i.e., homeopathy cannot prescribe medicines pertaining to another stream unless it is conferred by a State Law which is in force. ln Telangana State, the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act is in force as discussed above. ln simplest of terms, a person who is practicing homeopathy medicine cannot prescribe medicines under Allopathy.

11. ln the present case the petitioner is alleged to have been registered practitioner for Homeopathy, however he has been found to be prescribing allopathy medicines as per the averments in the complaint. Hence, there is a prima-facie case made out against the petitioner and the investigation is still in progress.

12. The contention of the petitioner counsel is that the prosecution needs to be launched by the Commissioner of Ayush and that the present case is registered when the complaint is lodged by the Sub_ lnspector of Police, which is not tenable in the eye of law and that there is a clear violation of Rule-8(7) of the Andhra pradesh Medical Council (Compulsory Rural Medical Service and Compulsory 5 ' I No 15.170,2025 ETD,J Government Service-Renewal of Registration, visiting : - inspecting the Hospital or Nursing Home or lnstitution) Rules,20 l) (for short, 'the Rules') issued vide G O.tr/s.No.129, dated 0g.08 i O.l 3, where the de-facto complainant failed to follow the procedure r;, rntemplated in Rule-8(7) of the Rules, which is as under:- "Whenever the Commissioner, AyIJSH is in rece,tr t of information from the Councit that a Medicat practition tr of Ayurveda Siddha, tJnani, Homeopathy and yog,t or Naturopathy is found practicing Modern Medicir t or prescribing drugs of Modern Medicine, he shalt in,iate appropiate action against such practitioner in terrr,; of Govemment Memo.No.8914/L2nT-1 , dated 17.03 997 appended to lhose rules as annexure-ll. The Commissioner, AYUSH shall initiate appropriate a.tion within thirty days on receipt of such information frot the Council and intimate the action taken lhereon to the Council."

13. A bare perusal of Rule S(7) of the Rules disclo: es that the Ayush Commissioner shall initiate appropriate action ,;ainst such practitioner in terms of G.O.tvl.S.No.B914lLZt97_.1 , datect 17.03.1gg1 . The G O.tr/s.No.8914/L2l97-.1 , dated 17.03.1gg7, is a circular Memorandum issued by the Government of Andhra pra,j >sh, Health, Medical and Family werfare (L) Department which reads; rs foilows:- 1. It is to inform that the Supreme Court of tndia has 1 rcn a decision in the case cited above prohibiting the Mei ical Practitioners from practicing and prescribing drugs in : her system of medicine in which they are not reEistered. 2. lt implies that a Medical practitioner who is regis\ red under Allopathic system of medicine is prohibited t om practicing and prescribing drugs in other systen.t of medicine like Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani etc., 6 I1TD,J Crlp.No.l5470 202i (

3. Similarly, the Medical Practilioners in Homeopathy, Ayurveda, and Unani etc., should confine their practice only to the systems of medicine in which they are registered and should not practice and prescribe drugs in any other system of medicine in which they are not registered. 4. Thus, the sale of Allopathic drugs to the Medical Practitioners who are not registered in the Allopathic system of medicine is an offence under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Similarly, sale of Altopathic drugs to a patient on the prescription of a Medical Practitioner who is not registered in the Allopathic system of medicine ls a/so an offence under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

5. Likewise, drugs belonging to other systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani Homeopathy etc., should not be sold either to the Medical Practitioners or to the patients on the prescriptions of Medical Practitioners who are not registered in the respective syslerns of medicines.

14. Thus it is mentioned in the above said Circular that the person who is practicing homeopathy cannot prescribe medicines in any other system in which they are not registered. lt is pertinent to take note of Rule-8(l) to (10) of the Rules in its entirety which is extracted for the sake of reference:- Rule-8(1) The Chairman of the Council may constitute one or more Committees each consisting of two or three members. (2) The Committee or Committees so constituted shall perform the following functions, namely; (a) lnquire suomoto or on a petition presented to the Chairman. (b) Visit or inspect, either by giving a notice or surprisingly, any hospital or Nursing home or institution or places where unethical practices are alleged to be in vogue. (c) Visit or inspect either any hospital or nursing home or institution or place where un-qualified persons or 7 E'TD,J ( lp.No.l i470 2025 quacks or doctors who do not belong to Modern Systera of Scientific Medicine but are practicing modert medicine and are prescribing drugs of moderl medicine. (d) Visit or inspect any hospital or nursing home cr institution or place where the medical practitioners whose names were removed from the register ar= alleged to be continuing to practice without surrenderintr the certificate of registration without sufficient cause. (3) Whenever information, is received that a Medic.tl Practitioner has been indulged in unethical practices which are unbecoming on the pai of any Medicttl Practitioner, the Registrar shall make an abstract c,l such information. (4) ' Any act of the Medical Practitioner shall b= construed as unethical, when he or she has indulged it any act which is included in chapter 6 of lndian Medicttl Council (Professional Conduct, etiquette and ethic:) Regulations-2))2 or any act which in the opinion of thz Council is unbecoming on the paft of a practitioner cr m ode rn scie ntific medicin e. (5) Where the information in question relating tt practice ol Modern Scientific Medicine or prescribinl drugs of modern medicine by a qualified practitioner cl olher syslems of medicine, such as Ayurvedit:, Homeopathy, Unani, Naturopathy or Sidda, tht Registrar shall make an abstract of such information. (6) The abstract and where a complaint has beel lodged, the complaint and all other documents bearintr on the case shall be submitted by the Registrar to th) Chairman, who may if thinks fit, instruct the Registrar t-t furnish the institution concerned with a copy of th: complaint and other documents and invite the head (l such institution by means of a registered letter to submit any explanation he may have to offer within a period cl ten clear working days. (7) Whenever the Commissioner, AYUSH is in receis'L of information from the Council that a Medic.tl Practitioner of AyuNeda, Siddha, Unani, Homeopathy and Yoga or naturopathy is found practicing Moderl Medicine or prescribing drugs of Modern Medicine, h: shall initiate appropriate action against such practitioner in terms of Government Memo.No.8g14/L2/97-1 , date 1 17.03-1997 appended to those rules as annexure-l'. The Commissioner, AYUSH shall initiate appropriatz action within thitty days on receipt of such informatiot I ) 8 ETD,J Crlp No. 15470-2025 from the Council and intimate the action taken thereon to the Council (8) Whenever any information is received or evidence is brought before any Commiftee constituted by the Council under caluse (iv) of Section 20 of the eit tnat drugs of Modern Medicine are dispensed by Druggists or Chemists on the prescription of practitioners oi6tn., syslems of medicine, the Council on receipt of such repoft from the Committee shall communicate he same to the Drug lnspector or Assrsfanf Director of Drug Control Administration with a request to hkle appropriate action on the Druggist or Chemist c^oncerned as per the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules made there-under. If the council come to the conclusion that no action has been initiated by the Drugs lnspector or the Assistant Director, Drug Control Administration within a period of thirly days, the Chairman of the Councit may instruct the Registrar to furnish the details to Director General, Drugs Control Administration with a copy of information received in this respect or copy of comptaint and other documents and request him to issue necessary instructions to the Drug lnspector or Asslstanl Director concerned. (9) Where, in any clinic or hospitat or nursing home or other institution or place where un-quatified persons or quacks are found practicing modern system or Scientific Medicine or prescribing drugs of modern medicine, crimingl proceedings wi be initiated by making a complaint to the Station House Officer concerned ai per Section 22 of the Act. (10) Where it is found that the Station House Officer has not acted upon the complaint-petition of the Council, the Chairman, A1MC who may thinks fit, instruct the Registrar to furnish the information togethear with other documents on record to the Superintendent of Police of the District Concerned or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer with a request to instruct the Station House Officer to initiate appropriate action in accordance with the Law.

15. A conjoint perusal of Rule-g(9) and (10) of the Rules would reveal that the Registrar is authorized to lodge a complaint as per Section 22 of the TMPR Act. Therefore, in the present case, the v 9 ETD,J ( rlp.No.l54?0 2025 complaint is lodged by the Sub-lnspector of Police, r hich is very much inconsonance with Sub-Rules 9 and 10 of Rule-8 r f the Rules.

16. Under Section 54 of NMCA, no Court shall take r; rgnizance of an .offence except upon a complaint in writing t1 an olficer authorized by the Commission or the Ethics a rd Medical Registration Board or a State tvledical Council. Thus, t has to be a complaint made in writing and the word 'complaint' is rJ lfined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows: "2. Definitions - (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) "Coinplaint" means any allegation made ore ly or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his t rking action under this Code, that some person, wr:ther known or unknown, has committed an offence , but does not include a police report."

17. Therefore, a complaint in writing has to be lodge I before the competent Court by the authorized officer and it does r rt include a police officer. ln the present case, the complaint is filerl by the Sub- lnspector of Police, who is not an authorized person al; per Section 54 of the N[4C4. Further, the complaint has to be mar| [sfe1s ths Court. Therefore, there is a lapse in the procedure ac< pted by the , I complainant and the said lapse would affect the case irr such a way that cognizance of the offence cannot be taken b,r the Court. TO ETD,J Crlp.No.l5470 202i However, without considering the same, the trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

18. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.164 of 2025 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein However, it is made clear that the authorized officer is at liberty to initiate criminal proceedings strictly in accordance with law i.e., in accordance with Section 54 of the NMCA.

19. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. A.PRATHIMA DEB]+Ii REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, \ 1 2 4 q The XIV Additional [Vletropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar. The Station House Officer, Hayathnagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate. One CC to SRI B VAMSHIDHAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies. HIGH COURT ETDJ DATED:2511112025 ORDER CRLP.No.15470 ot 2025 /,. '.j _.- r ,,,,i 1i: l.t m6 iit,. . \, ,,-\.| 1l t.':. - .\. CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF