Safiya Malik

The Telangana High Court, Single Bench of Justice Tirumala Devi Eada, has held that a Homoeopathy medical practitioner cannot prescribe Allopathy medicines, a position the Court traced to the Constitution Bench's decision in Dr Mukhtiar Chand v. State of Punjab. The case arose from allegations against a practitioner registered under the Homoeopathy system who was found to be prescribing medicines belonging to Allopathy. While affirming the illegality of such cross-system practice, the Court simultaneously quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground that the statutory requirement under Section 54 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 had not been complied with — the complaint was filed before the police rather than before a competent court as the provision mandates. The Court left open the option for the authorized officer to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

The Criminal Petition was filed by the petitioner-accused seeking quashment of proceedings in a crime registered by Sadasivpet Police Station, Sangareddy District, for offences under Sections 318 and 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 20(ii) read with 22 of the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968, and Section 34 read with 54 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.

Also Read:Nepotism And Self-Aggrandizement Anathema To Democratic System: Supreme Court Cancels Deluxe Flat Allotments To Haryana Housing Society Officials And Their Subordinates

According to the prosecution, the petitioner was a registered Homeopathy Medical Practitioner holding BHMS qualification. It was alleged that he was practicing Allopathy medicine and prescribing allopathic drugs, thereby attracting offences relating to cheating and unlawful medical practice. The petitioner contended that similar proceedings had been quashed by a co-ordinate Bench and argued that prosecution ought to have been initiated by the Commissioner, AYUSH, in accordance with Rule 8(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Rules, 2013.

The Standing Counsel for the Telangana Medical Council submitted that a practitioner qualified in Homeopathy cannot prescribe Allopathy medicines and that such conduct violated statutory provisions under the BNS, TMPR Act, and NMCA. The Registrar of the State Medical Council had lodged the complaint before the Station House Officer.

The Court examined the statutory framework and observed that “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.”

Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand, the Court recorded: “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.”

It further recorded: “Therefore, 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.”

On the procedural aspect, the Court stated: “Under Section 54 of the NMCA, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence except upon a complaint in writing made in this behalf by an officer authorized by the Commission or the Ethics and Medical Registration Board or a State Medical Council.”

Referring to the definition of complaint, the Court held: “‘Complaint’ means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code… but does not include a police report.”

The Court then observed: “Thus, there is nothing wrong if the Registrar files the complaint, but the said complaint has to be made to the concerned Court and not before the Station House Officer.”

It further recorded: “Therefore, there is a lapse in the procedure adopted by the concerned authority and the said lapse would affect the case in such a way that cognizance of the offence cannot be taken by the Court.”

Finally, the Court stated: “In the present case, the Registrar has filed the complaint before the Station House Officer. Hence, no Court can take cognizance of the said complaint.”

Also Read: Husband's Girlfriend Not A “Relative” Under Section 498A IPC; Telangana High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Woman In Dowry-Stalking Complaint

The Court directed that “the proceedings in Crime No.300 of 2025 on the file of Sadasivpet Police Station, Sangareddy District, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein. The authorized officer is at liberty to initiate criminal proceedings strictly in accordance with law i.e., in accordance with Section 54 of the NMCA. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel

For the Respondents: Sri Sama Sandeep Reddy, Standing Counsel for TMC; Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor

 
Case Number: Criminal Petition No.9871 of 2025
Bench: Justice Tirumala Devi Eada