A qualified medical practitioner cannot prescribe medications from a different medical stream unless legally authorized, emphasizing the necessity of proper complaint procedures in criminal charges.

ORDER :

Tirumala Devi Eada, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.489 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Patancheru, Sangareddy District, registered for the offences under Sections 318 (4) and 319(2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNS ”), Section 20(ii) read with 22 of Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration (for short ‘TMPR’) Act,1968 and Section 34 read with 54 of National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (for short ‘ NMCA ’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a registered Homeopathy Medical Practitioner vide Registration No.305/H/2017. It is alleged 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 IPC and Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act.

3. Heard the submissions of Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sama Sandeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TMC for respondent No.2 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations faced by the petitioner are that though he is a qualified 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 TMC has argued that a person who is qualified in Homeopahty, cannot prescribe the medicines under Allopathy and that it is a clear violation of the regulations and is punishable for the offences under Sections 318 (4) and 319(2) of BNS , Section 20(ii) read with 22 of the TMPR Act and Section 34 read with 54 of the NMCA . He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. Since the offences alleged are under Sections 318 (4) and 319(2) of BNS , Section 20(ii) read with 22 of TMPR Act and Section 34 read with 54 of NMCA , the said Sections of are pertinent to be referred in this context:-

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 punished 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.”

Section 20(ii) and 22 of TMPR Act

“20. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force,-

(i) xxx

(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 imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one tho