The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINA LPETITION No.1 5478 0F 2025 ORDER: This criminar petition is fired by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.1615 of 2025 on the fire of XrV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar, registered for the offences under Sections 319(2) and 318(4) of The Bharatiya Nyaya.Sanhita, 2023 (for short ,,BNS,,), Section 20(ii) read wilh 22 of Telangana Medical practitioners Registration (for short 'r[/pR') Act,i96g and section 34 of Nationar Medical Commission Act, 2019 (for short ,N|\4CA,).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a registered Homeopathy Medicar practitioner vide Registration No.APMC/F[\4R/7630. rt is aileged that the petitioner is practicing Allopathy medicine, though he is qualified in BHMS and that the said act of practicing allopathy medicine attracts the offences under Sections 419 and 420 of lpC and Section i5(2) of the lndian l\Iedical Council Act.

3. Heard the submissions of Sri B.Vamshidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sama Sandeep Reddy, learned standing counser for TMC for respondent No.2 and sri Jithender I I X 2 ETD,J Crlp.No.l5178 2025 Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Puk,l c prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State 4- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations faced by the petitioner are that thou 3h he is a qualified Doctor in Homeopathy, he is prescribing tlr I medicines under Allopathy. He referred to the order, dated 02 19.2025, of the Co- ordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No.7668 (f 2025 and Batch. wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has quash,: i the proceedings against the petitioners therein. 5 The learned Standing Counsel for TMC: has argued that a person who is qualified in Homeopahty, ca rnot prescribe the medicines under Allopathy and that it is a cl,,ar violation of the regulations and is punishable for the offences ur jer Sections 31g(2) and 318(4) of BNS, Section 20 (ii) r/w. 22 o'f 114PR Act, 1968 and Section 34 of NMCA. He therefore, prayed to dis,r riss the petition.

6. Perused the record

7. Since the offences alleged are under {i rctions 319(2) and 318(4) of BNS, Section 20 (ir) rlw.22 of Ttt4)R Act, 1968 and Section 34 of NMCA, the said Sections of :-e pertinent to be referred in this context:- 3 ETD,J Crlp.No.l54 76_2025 Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of BNS: "318. Cheating - ( 1) xxx (2) xxx (3) xxx (4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punlshed with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

319. Cheating by personation - (1) xxx (2) Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both." Sections 20(ii) and 22 of TMPR Act "20. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force,- (i) (ii) no person other than a registered practitioner shall, with effect from such date as may be specified by the Government by notification in this behalf, practice the modern scientific medicine or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication as practicing or as being prepared to so practice;

22. Whoever contravenes the provisions of clause(ii) of Section 20 shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both, and on any subsequent, conviction with \ \1...1 4 ETD,J Crlp.No.l5478 2025 - imorisonment which may extend to six months iinL wnicn may extend to one thousand rupees both." rr with rr with Sections 34 of NMCA: '34. Bat to practice - (1) No persor other nerson who is enrolled in the State Registra - fuationat Register, as the case may be' shall - (a) be allowed to practice medicine as a tr medical Practitioner; ( b) hold office as a physician or surgeor other office, by whatever name called v meant to be held by a physician or surg( (c) be entitled to sign or authenticate a m') fitness certificate or any other c l required bY any law to be sigr authenticated by a duly qualified t Practitioner; (d) be entitled to give evidence at any inql t any court of law as an expert under se t of the lndian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of I any matter relating to medicine: Provided that the Commission shall submit a list medical professionals to the Central Goverr t such manner as maY be Prescribed: Provided further that a foreign citizen who is ertt his country as a medical practitioner in accordz r law regulating the registration of il; oractitioners in that country may be t'l l.roorury registration in lndia for such perio 1 .u"n ,"nn", as may be specified by the regulat (2) Any person who contravenes any of the pr 'this'section shall be punished with imprisor r a term which may extend to one year, or with fin may extend to five lakh rupees or with both' han a or the ralified lr any hich is on; lical or tificate -'d or redical st or in tion 45 i72) on rf such rent in :lled in ce with nedical rmitted and in )ns. visions rent for r which B. Thus, under the NMCA and the TTMPR Act, no person shall practice the modern medicine unless he is registe-r d under the Act for the said Purpose I ,j]'..',' ! / 5 ETD.J Crlp.No. I5478,2025

9. The petitioner counsel has placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and Others Vs. Sfate of punjab and Othersl , wherein it was held in paragraph Nos.47 and 49 that; (47):- A harmonious reading of Section 1b of the 1956 Act and Section 17 of the 1970 Act leads to the conclusion that there rs no scope for a person enrolled on the State Register of lndian Medicine or the Centrat Register of tndian Medicine to practice modern scientific medicine in any of its branches unless that person ,-s also enrolted on a State Medical Register within the meaning of the 1956 Act. (49)i The upshot of the above dr'scussion is that Rute 2(ee) (iii) as effected from 14.05.1960 is vatid and does not suffer from the vice of want of legislative competence and the notifications rssued by the State Governments thereunder are not ultra vires the said Rule and are legal. However, after sub-section (2) in Section 1S of the 19S6Act occupied the field vide Central Act 24 of 1964 with effect from 16.06.1964, the benefit of the said Rute and the notifications issued thereunder would be availabte onty in those Sfafes where the privitege of such right to practice any system of medicine is conferred iy the State Law under which practitioners of tndian meiicine are registered in the State, which is for the time being in force. The position with regard to medicat practitioners if lndian medicine holding degrees in integrated courses ls orl the same plane inasmuch as if any Slale Acf recognizes their qualification as sufficient for registration in th; State Medical Register, the prohibition contained in Section 15(2)(b) ot the 1956 Act witt not appty '10. 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 I

11998.1 7 Suprcme Cour .Cases 579 6 ETD,J Crlp.No. I 5478-2025 discussed above. ln simplest of terms, a person I rho is practicing homeopathy medicine cannot prescribe medicines I rder Allopathy.

11. ln the present case the petitioner is alleg:j to have been iegistered practitioner for Homeopathy, however h: has been found to be prescribing allopathy medicines as per the i verments in the complaint. Hence, there is a prima-facie case mac( out against the petitioner and the investigation is still in progress.

12. The contention of the petitioner counsel is tha the prosecution needs to be launched by the Commissioner of Ayt sh and that the present case is registered when the complaint is lodged by the Registrar of the Telangana Medical Council, which s not tenable in the eye of law and that there is a clear violation or, lule-g(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council (Compulsory Rural t\/edical Service and Compulsory Government Servir e-Renewal of Registration, visiting or inspecting the Hospital or l{ trsing Home or lnstitution) Rules, 2013 (for short, ,the Rule; ) issued vide G.O.Ms.No.129, dated 08.08.2013, where the de-fil do complainant failed to follow the procedure contemplated in Rule-ll 7) of the Rules, which is as under:- "Whenever the Commissioner, AyIJSH is in r e :eipt of information from the Council that a Medicat practt ioner of Ayurueda Siddha, lJnani, Homeopathy and 'oga or Naturopathy is found practicing Modlem Med );e or -, --' -:-j=-a- Ir I D,J Crlp.No.l 5478_2025 prescibing drugs of Modern Medicine, he shall initiate appropiate action against such practitioner in tems of Govemment Memo.No.8914/L2/97-1, dated 17.03.1997 appended to those rules as annexure-ll. The Commissioner, AYUSH shall initiate appropiate action within thitly days on receipt of such information from the Council and intimate the action taken thereon to the Council."

13. A bare perusal of Rule 8(7) of the Rules discloses that the Ayush Commissioner shall initiate appropriate action against such practitioner in terms of G.O. M.S.No .891 4lL2l97 -1, dated 1 7. 03.'l 997. The G.O.Ms.No.8914lL2l97-1, dated 17.03.1997, is a Circular Memorandum issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (L) Department which reads as follows:- 1 . lt is to inform that the Supreme Court of lndia has given a decision in the case cited above prohibiting the Medical Practitioners from practicing and prescribing drugs in other system of medicine in which they are not registered.

2. lt implies that a Medical Practitioner who is registered under Allopathic system of medicine is prohibited from practicing and prescribing drugs in other systems of medicine like AyuNeda, Homeopathy, Unani etc.,

3. Similarly, the Medical Practitioners 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 Praclitioners who are not registered in the Allopathic system of medicine is an offence under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmellcs Act. Similarly, sale of Allopathic drugs to a patient on the prescription of a Medical Practitioner who is not registered in the Allopathic system of medicine is also an offence under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 8 E'TD.J t rlp.No.l5.l78 2025 \i\ S. Likewise, drugs belonging fo ofher syslems cf Tedicine like Ayurveda, Unani Homeopathy etc., should r ( t be sold either to the Medical Practitioners or to the patie t ls on the prescriptions of Medical Practitioners who are nol t tgislered in the respective syslems of medicines.

14. Thus it is mentioned in the above said Circula-that the person who is practicing homeopathy cannot prescribe r edicines in any other system in which they are not registered. lt is; oertinent to take note of Rule-8(1) to (10) of the Rules in its entirety v hich is extracted for the sake of reference:- Rule-\(1) The Chairman of the Council may constitute one or more Committees each consistin ) of two or three members. (2) The Committee or Committee; so constituted shall peiorm the following fun: ions. namelY; (a) lnquire suomoto or on a petition presented L ) the Chairman. (b) Visit or inspect, either by giving a trct ( ) surprisingly, any hospital or Nursing hotr.t institution or places where unethical practice: alleged to be in vogue. (c) Vist or inspect either any hospital or nursing or nstitution or place where un-qualified per s t quacks or doctors who do not belong to Modern :;' of Scientific Medicine but are practicing rt medicine and are prescribing drugs of rt medicine. (d) Visit or inspect any hospital or nursing hcr institution or place where the medical practttt whose names were removed from the registe alleged to be continuing to practice without surret'( the cerlificate of registration without sufficient cau; ,s or sle/'n 'dern te or )ners (3) Whenever information, is received that a A4 Practitioner has been indulged in unethical pr) which are unbecoming on the paft of any A4 Practitioner, the Registrar shall make an abst'i such information. ct of L 9 ETD,J Crlp.No.l5478 2025 @ Any act of the Medical practitioner shalt be construed as unethical, when he or she has indulged in any act which is included in chapter 6 of tndian Medicat Council (Professional Conduct, etiquette and ethics) Regulations-2l02 or any act which in the opinion of the Council is unbecoming on the pai of a piactitioner or modern scientific medicine. (5) Where the information in question relating to practice of Modern Scientific Medicine or prescr-ibing drugs of modern medicine by a qualified practitioner if other systems of medicine, such as Ayurvedic, Homeopathy, Unani, Naturopathy or Sidda, the Registrar shall make an abstract of such information. (6) The abstract and where a complaint has been lodged, the complaint and alt other documents bearing on the case shall be submitted by the Registrar to the Chairman, who may if thinks fit, instruct the Registrar to furnish the institution concerned with a copy of the complaint and other documents and invite the head of such institution by means of a registered letter to submit any explanation he may have to offer within a period of ten clear working days. (7) Whenever the Commissioner, AyIJSH is in receipt of information from the Councit that a Medical Practttioner of Ayurveda, Siddha, llnani, Homeopathy 11d vlga or naturopathy is found practicing Modein Medicine or prescribing drugs of Modern Medicine, he shall initiate appropriate action against such practitioner in terms of Government Memo.No.g914/LZg7_1. dated 17.03.1997 appended to those rules as annexure_ll. The Commissioner. AYUSH shall initiate appropiate action within thitty days on receipt of such information from the Council and intimate the action taken thereon to the Council. (8) Whenever any information is received or evidence is brought before any Committee constituted by the Council under caluse (iv) of Section 20 of the A;t that drugs of Modern Medicine are dispensed by Druggists or Chemists on the prescription of practitioners oiotner sysrems of medicine, the Council on receipt of such report from the Committee shall communicate he same to the Drug lnspector or Assisfanl Director of Drug Control Administration with a request to take appropriate action on the Druggist or Chemist c-oncerned as per the provisions of Drugs and Cosrnef/bs Act, 1940 and the Rules made thereinder. tf l0 ETD,J Crlp No.15478-.2025 the council come to the conclusion that no actit been initiated by the Drugs lnspector or the As: Director, Drug Control Administration within a pe r thitty days, the Chairman of the Council may instu Registrar to furnish the details to Director Gz Drugs Control Administration with a copy of inforn received in this respect or copy of complaint and documents and request him to issue nece instructions to the Drug lnspector or Assistant Lti concerned. ,has td of I the rcral, ;sa4/ (9) Where, in any clinic or hospital or nursing ho,1e or other institution or place where un-qualified persc B or quacks are found practicing modern system or Sci 'ntific Medicine or prescribing drugs of modern mec cine, criminal proceedings will be initiated by ma,<, tg a complaint to the Station House Officer concerned t s per Section 22 of the Act. (10) Where it is found that the Station House ( has not acted upon the complaint-petition ) Council, the Chairman, APMC who may thirtl instruct the Registrar to furnish the information tc( with other documents on record to the Superint= of Police of the District Concerned or the Sub-Di,"'i Police Officer with a request to instruct the S House Officer to initiate appropriate acti) accordance with the Law. fficer s fit, '15. A conjoint perusal of Rule-8(9) and (10) o'the Rules would reveal that the Registrar is authorized to lodge a )omplaint as per Section 22 of the TMPR Act. Therefore, in the p'esent case, the complaint is lodged by the Vigilance Officer of T( langana tt/ledical Council, which is very much inconsonance with Su r-Rules 9 and 10 of Rule-8 of the Rules.

16. But, under Section 54 of NMCA, no ( ourt shall take cognizance of an offence except upon a complain in writing by an officer authorized by the Commission or the Etl cs and tvledical EI'D,J Crlp.No.l547E_ 2025 Registration Board or a State Medical Council. Thus, it has to be a complaint made in writing and the word 'complaint' is defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows "2. Definitions - (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) "Complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unhnown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report."

17. Therefore, a complaint in writing has to be lodged before the competent Court by the authorized officer and it does not include a police report. ln the present case, the complaint is filed before the Station House Officer by the Vigilance Officer. There is nothing wrong if the Vigilance Officer files the complaint, but it has to be ( I made to the concerned Court and not before the Station House Officer. Therefore, there is a lapse in the procedure adopted by the concerned authority and the said lapse would affect the case in such a way that cognizance of the offence cannot be taken by the Court. Therefore, continuation of proceedings in the present case against the petitioner is abuse of process of law.

18. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.1 615 of 2025 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at t2 ETD,J Crlp.No.l5478 2025 Hayathnagar, are hereby quashed against the p': itioner herein' However, it is made clear that the authorized offic€ r is at liberty to initiate criminal proceedings strictly in accordance |ith law i'e'' in accordance with Section 54 of the NMCA' '19. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed tr Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sh a I stand closed SD/. M. AWAHAR REDDY ASS|ti ANT REGIST'AR ., .,,, S ECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, t. The XIV Additional Hayathnagar. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

2. The Station House Officer, Hayathnagar Police Station' Fli chakonda' 3. Two GCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Str te of Telangana' at Hyderabad. IOUT]

4. One CC to trilr. B VAMSHIDHAR REDDY, Advocate [O['l 5. Two CD CoPies 'C] RC/PSL U)'- HIGH COURT DATED: 2511112025 { ORDER CRLP.No.15478 of 2025 ' o,. ".) _ i i[i; M 'i: l\ 1: 'i i;,i,,: 1 l<_ t1?t- *\:- Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Disl,osed of. a-(, b .rftr Vs41e ,.'to)* \7''