SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 37853

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Tirumala Devi Eada, J
Dr. Boopal Shashidhar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.14808 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. Vamshidhar Reddy
For the Respondents: Sama Sandeep Reddy, E. Ganesh

Criminal proceedings under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 can only be initiated upon a written complaint by an authorized officer before a court; a police-registered FIR is insufficient to meet the condition of cognizance under Section 54.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 318(4) and 319(2) - Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968 - Section 20(ii) and 22 - National Medical Commission Act, 2019 - Section 34 and 54 - Medical practitioner qualified in Ayurvedic system practicing modern scientific medicine - Validity of criminal proceedings initiated upon police complaint - Under S.54 of the NMCA, cognizance can only be taken upon a complaint in writing by an officer authorized by the Commission or the State Medical Council - Complaint filed before Station House Officer by Vigilance Officer is not in consonance with statutory requirements - Proceedings quashed due to procedural lapse. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a registered Ayurvedic medical practitioner, was accused of practicing Allopathy medicine in violation of the BNS, TMPR Act, and NMCA. The FIR was registered at the instance of a complaint from the Vigilance Officer of the state medical council to the police.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that while practitioners are barred from prescribing medicines outside their registered stream, criminal proceedings for offences under the NMCA must strictly follow the procedural mandate of filing a written complaint before a court by an authorized officer, rather than relying on a police report.

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings initiated by way of a complaint to the police station for alleged medical contraventions are legally sustainable under Section 54 of the NMCA.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a specific mechanism for initiating cognizance of offences (the necessity of a written complaint by an authorized officer), failure to adhere to this mandatory procedure mandates the quashing of proceedings initiated through otherwise irregular channels (police FIRs).

Result: Criminal Petition allowed. Proceedings quashed.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.182 of 2025 on the file of Gandhinagar Police Station, Hyderabad, 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’).

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a registered Ayurvedic Medical Practitioner vide Registration No.1257. It is alleged that the petitioner is practicing Allopathy medicine, though he is qualified in BAMS and that the said act of practicing allopathy medicine attracts 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.

Heard the submissions of Sri B. Vamshidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sama Sandeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TMC for respondent No.2 and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations faced by the petitioner are that though he is a qualified Doctor in Ayurvedic, 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.

The learned Standing Counsel for TMC has argued that a person who is qualified in Ayurvedic, 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 Criminal Petition.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted to pass appropriate orders in the Criminal Petition.

Perused the record.

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 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 thousand rupees or with both.”

Sections 34 and 54 of NMCA:

“34. Bar to practice – (1) No person other than a person who is enrolled in the State Registrar or the Na

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top