THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7668, 7669 & 7691 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

I have heard Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel argued on behalf of Mr. B.Vamsidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Mr. Sama Sandheep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Medical Council appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. Since the contentions raised, the issues requiring consideration, and the questions of law involved in these matters are substantially analogous, all the petitions were heard together and are accordingly being disposed of by this common order.

3. Criminal Petition No.7669 of 2025 is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) for quashment of proceedings in Crime No.393 of 2025 on the file of the Police Station, KPHB Colony, Cyberabad District against the petitioner/accused.

Criminal Petition No.7691 of 2025 is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashment of proceedings in Crime No.222 of 2025 on the file of the Police Station, Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy District against the petitioner/accused.

Criminal Petition No.7668 of 2025 is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashment of proceedings in Crime No.342 of 2025 on the file of the Police Station, Sangareddy Rural, Sangareddy District against the petitioner/accused.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.05.2025, the Respondent No.2/Telangana Medical Council (for short ‘theTMC’)/de facto complainant conducted a surprise inspection of the clinics run by the petitioners/accused in Cyberabad and Sangareddy. It was alleged that the petitioners were practicing allopathic medicine without possessing the requisite qualifications. Based on the inspection, the TMC, through its Registrar and Vigilance Officer, lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners were administering IV fluids, injections, and allopathic drugs in violation of Rule 8(2)(9) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Rules, 2013 (APMCR); Section 20(ii) read with Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968(TMPR Act); Sections 34 of the National Medical Commission Act (NMCA); and Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Consequently, the related crimes were registered against the petitioners.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the registration of crimes without conducting any preliminary enquiry is ex facie an abuse of process. He further submitted that even as per the contents of the complaint, the petitioners are duly qualified BAMS degree holders, having valid registration with the Government of Telangana, Board of Indian Medicine, and the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (NCISM Act, 2020). Their clinics are duly registered, and they have undergone internships at Government Hospitals, thereby gaining practical clinical experience. It was emphasized that the petitioners have never represented themselves as MBBS doctors. Rather, they are engaged in legally permissible medical practice which stands protected under Section 17(3)(b) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (IMCC Act, 1970).

Learned Counsel further relied on the Notification issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) in 1996 and the Ayush Memorandum dated 30.03.2017, both of which permitted Ayurvedic practitioners to practice modern scientific medicine to a limited extent. He also contended that no complaint has been filed by an authorized officer under Section 50 of the NCISM Act, 2020, and that the TMC has no suo motu power under Rule 8(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Rules, 2013 (APMC Rules). Thus, there exists a clear procedural irregularity. Moreover, the complaint lacks particulars regarding prescriptions or instances of impersonation, which are necessary to invoke Sections 31