Homeopathy Doctor's Allopathy Prescription Sparks Legal Battle—and a Procedural Knockout

In a ruling that reinforces strict boundaries between medical systems while exposing a critical procedural misstep, the Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a homeopathy practitioner accused of prescribing allopathy medicines. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada, in Criminal Petition No. 9871 of 2025, emphasized that homeopathy doctors cannot venture into allopathy territory without proper registration, but dismissed the case due to improper initiation under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (NMCA).

From Clinic to Police Station: The Spark of the Dispute

The petitioner, a registered homeopathy practitioner holding BHMS qualification and Registration No. 287/H/2017, faced charges in Crime No. 300 of 2025 at Sadasivpet Police Station, Sangareddy District. The allegations? Despite his homeopathy credentials, he was prescribing allopathy drugs—a practice allegedly violating Sections 318 (cheating) and 319 (cheating by personation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Section 20(ii) read with 22 of the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration (TMPR) Act, 1968, and Section 34 read with 54 of the NMCA.

The complaint originated from the Registrar of the Telangana Medical Council (TMC), who reported the practitioner to the police after inspecting his clinic. Investigation was underway, but the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking to quash the FIR, arguing procedural irregularities and reliance on a prior coordinate bench order.

Petitioner's Defense: Procedure Over Substance?

The petitioner's counsel, Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, argued that only the Commissioner of AYUSH could launch prosecution, not the TMC Registrar. He highlighted Rule 8(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Rules, 2013 (applicable in Telangana context), mandating AYUSH action on such reports. He also cited a recent coordinate bench order in Criminal Petition No. 7668 of 2025 quashing similar proceedings.

TMC's Standing Counsel, Sri Sama Sandeep Reddy, countered fiercely: Homeopathy practitioners are barred from allopathy under TMPR Act and NMCA. Prescribing across systems constitutes cheating and impersonation, attracting the invoked sections. He urged dismissal, stressing the prima facie case from clinic evidence.

Diving into Statutes: Supreme Court Echoes and a Fatal Flaw

Justice Eada meticulously dissected the laws. She quoted Sections 318 and 319 BNS (cheating provisions), TMPR Section 20(ii) barring unregistered practice of modern medicine, and NMCA Section 34 prohibiting unqualified practice alongside Section 54's strict cognizance rule: offenses require a written complaint by authorized officers directly to court, not police.

Pivotal was the 1998 Supreme Court Constitution Bench in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand v. State of Punjab ((1998) 7 SCC 579). The Court noted:

“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... to practice modern scientific medicine... unless that person is also enrolled on a State Medical Register.”

Telangana's TMPR Act offers no such cross-practice privilege, the judge affirmed:

“In simplest of terms, a person who is practicing homeopathy medicine cannot prescribe medicines under Allopathy.”

A prima facie case existed based on the complaint's averments. Yet, the knockout punch: TMC Registrar lodged the complaint with the Station House Officer, bypassing NMCA Section 54. Under CrPC Section 2(d), a "complaint" excludes police reports and must go straight to court. Rules 8(9)-(10) empower the Registrar for TMPR complaints to police, but NMCA demands court filing. This "lapse" rendered cognizance impossible, abusing process.

Key Observations Straight from the Bench

  • On cross-practice ban : “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.”

  • Procedural verdict : “The said complaint has to be made to the concerned Court and not before the Station House Officer. Therefore, there is a lapse in the procedure adopted... cognizance of the offence cannot be taken by the Court.”

  • Prima facie acknowledgment : “The petitioner... has been found to be prescribing allopathy medicines as per the averments in the complaint. Hence, there is a prima-facie case made out against the petitioner.”

Quashed—But Door Ajar for Fresh Start

The Court quashed proceedings in Crime No. 300/2025, deeming them an " abuse of process ." Liberty granted to authorized officers to refile "strictly in accordance with Section 54 NMCA." Dated October 29, 2025 , this order, as highlighted in legal reports, balances medical regulation enforcement with procedural sanctity, potentially guiding future complaints against cross-system practice.

This ruling underscores: Substance matters, but procedure is king in India's medical jurisprudence.