THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15470 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.164 of 2025 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, registered for the offences under Section 318(4) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Section 15 (3) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a registered Homeopathy Medical Practitioner vide Registration No.7630/H/2013. 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 Section 420 of IPC and Section 15(3) of the Act.

3. 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 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 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(4) 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 (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.

8. Under the NMCA and the TMPR Act, no person shall practice the modern medicine unless he is registered under the Act for the said purpose.

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. State of Punjab and Others, (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 579 wherein it was held in paragraph Nos.47 and 49 that;

(47):- A harmonious reading of Section 15 of the 1956 Act and Section 17 of the 1970 Act leads to the conclusion that there is no scope for a person enrolled on the State Register of Indian Medicine or the Central Register of Indian Medicine to practice modern scientific medicine in any of its branches unless that person is also enrolled on a State Medical Register within the meaning of the 1956 Act.

(49):- The upshot of the above discussion is that Rule

2(ee) (iii) as effected from 14.05.1960 is valid and does not suffer from the vice of want of legislative competence and the notifications issued by the State Governments thereunder are not ultra vires the said Rule and are legal. However, after sub-section (2) in Section 15 of the 1956 Act occupied the field vide Central Act 24 of 1964 with effect from 16.06.1964, the benefit of the said Rule and the notifications issued thereunder would be available only in those States where the privilege of such right to practice any system of medicine is conferred by the State Law under which practitioners of Indian medicine

are registered in the State, which is for the time be