[ 33031

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

RIMINAL PETITI NO: 8510 OF 20

Between:

Dr. G. Satya Sheela Reddy, S/o. G. Bheem Reddy, aged about 68 years, Occ.

Homeopathic Doctor, Rl/o. 1-7-147, Police Lines, New Gunj Road, Mahabubnagar

Town and District.

...Petitioner/Accused

AND

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana.

2. Mr. Dr.'Dhandem Lalaiah Kumar, Registrar, Telangana State Medical Council,

Having its office at P.B. 523, Sulthan Bazar, Hyderabad.

...Respondents/Complainant

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the

Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash

the proceedings against the petitioner herein in c.c. No. 212 o1 2026 on the file of lll

Additional Junior Civil Judge Court Cum Judicial Magistrate, First Class Court at

Mahabubnagar for the offences under section 318 and 319 BNS and Section 22 of

TMPR Act, 1968 and 34 RA,V Section 54 of NMC Act, 2019.

l.A. NO: I OF 2026

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the

Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of

all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner herein in c.c. No. 212

of 2026 on the file of lll Additional Junior civil Judge court cum Judicial Magistrate,

First class court at Mahabubnagar for the offences under section 318 & 319 BNS and

Section 22 of TMPR Act, 1968 and Section 34 R^^/ Section 54 of NMC Act, 2019

pending disposal of the present Criminal Petition.

=!!TrtE!!E!E!7

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of

Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Rajagopal Reddy, Advocate

for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on

behalf of Respondent No.1 and of Sri Sama Sandeeep Reddy (SC for TSMC), Advocate

for the Respondent No.2.

The Court made the following: ORDER

FOR or

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

Datez t7.O6.2O26

Between:

Dr. G.Satya Sheela Reddy

. . . Petitioner/ Accused

AND

The State of Telangana and another

...Respondents

ORDER

This criminal petition has been filed seeking to quash the

proceedings in C.C. No.212 of 2026 on the file of the III Additional

Junior Civil Judge's Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First C]ass Court

at Mahabubnagar, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused, for

the offences punishable under Sections 318 and 319 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNS), section 22 of the Telangana

Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 196g (for short the TMpR Act,)

and Section 34 rlw 54 of the National Medicar commission Act, 2oLg

(for short the NMC Act).

2. Heard Mr. P.Rajagopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,

and Mr' Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additionat Public prosecutor

for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

ilt

{l

I

J

I

2

To,

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that thc issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely

covered by the order passed by this Court in Crl'P' No'9903 of 2025

'

dated 29 .lO .2025.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the

submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner'

5. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances as

well as the submissions made by the respective parties and in view of

the order passed by this Court in Crl'P' No'9903 of 2025' dated

29.10.2025, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of

the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of

law.

6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings

in C.C. No.212 of 2026 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil

Judge's Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court at

Mahabubnagar, against the petitioner/ accused are hereby quashed'

Pending miscellaneous applications' if any' shall stand closed'

SD/- N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER

.1.

The lll Additional Junior civil Judge court cum Judicial Magistrate, First class

Court at Mahabubnagar

2. The Station House Officer, Devarakadra Police Station, Mahabubnagar

3. One CC to Sri P Rajagopal Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Sri Sama Sandeeep Reddy (SC for TSMC)' Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at

Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies

ADK/KA

Alongwithacopyoforderdated2g.|o.2o25incrlp.No.9903of2025

x

I

/

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1710612026

ORDER

CRLP.No.8510 of 2026

ALLOWING THE CRLP

f,

o

o

2 5 JUN

2026 C,

I

4'r

Itie STAIE

(

t

'l( r, -.,^, j,

@

a,tlL

lau.

-

THE HON'BLE SMT, JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEV! EADA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9903 0F 2025

SDEE:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking

to quash the proceedings in Crime No.489 of 2O25 on the file of P.S.

Patancheru, Sangareddy District, registered for the offences under

Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita' 2023

(for short 'BNS"), Section 20(ii) read wilh 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',).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a

registered Homeopathy Medical Practitioner vide Registration

No.305/H/2017. lt 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

Sections 41 9 and 420 ol IPC and Section 15(2) of the lndian Medical

Council Act.

3. Heard the submissions of Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy' learned

counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sama Sandeep Reddy' learned

Standing Counsel for TMC for respondent No.2 and Sri Jithender

-

1

ETD,J

Crlp.No.9903_2025

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 Homeopahty, 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 wilh 22 of the TMPR Act and

Section 34 read with 54 of the NMCA. He therefore, prayed to

dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record

7. 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

3

ETD,J

Crlp.No.9903 2025

34 read with 54 of NMCA, the said Sections of are pertinent to be

refened 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. Ch

(1

) xxx.

by personation -

(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)

(ii)

xxx

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;

4

ETD,J

Crlp.No.9903 2025

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 NMGA:

"34. Bar to practice - (1) No person other than a

person who is enrolled in the State Registrar or the

National Register, as the case may be, shall -

(a) be allowed to practice medicine as a qualified

medical practitioner;

(b) hold office as a physician or surgeon or any

other office, by whatever name called, which is

meant to be held by a physician or surgeon;

(c) be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or

fitness certificate or any other certificate

required by any law to be signed or

authenticated by a duly qualified medical

practitioner;

(d) be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in

any court of law as an expert under section 45

ofthe lndian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) on

any matter relating to medicine:

Provided that the Commission shall submit a list of such

medical professionals to the Central Government in

such manner as may be prescribed:

Provided further that a foreign citizen who is enrolled in

his country as a medical practitioner in accordance with

the law regulating the registration of medical

practitioners in that country may be permitted

temporary registration in lndia for such period and in

such manner as may be specified by the regulations.

(2) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions

of this section shall be punished with imprisonment for

a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which

may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.

f,

ETD;J

Crlp.No.9903_2025

cognizance of an offence punishable under this

except upon a complaint in writing made in this be

Act

half

by an officer authorized by the Commission or the

Ethics and Medical Registration Board or a State

Medical Council, as the case may be."

8. Thus, under the NMCA and the TMPR Act, no person shall

practice the modern medicine unless he is registered under the Act

forthe 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. Sfafe of Puniab and Othersl ,

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 lndian Medicine u the Central Register of lndian

Medicine to practice modern scientific medicine in any of its

branches unless that person is also enrolled on a Sfate

Medical Register within the meaning of the 1956 Act.

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

2(ee) (iil as effected from 14.05.1960 is valid and does not

suffer lrom the vice of want of legislative competence and

the notifications rissued by the State Governments

thereunder are not ultra vires the said Rule and are legal.

However, after sub-section (2) in Section 1 5 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 lndian medicine

in the State, which is for the time being

nizance of offences - No court shall take

qfz)

in force. The position with regard to medicalpractitioners of

tndian medicine holding degrees in integrated courses is on

I

(1998) ? Supreme court cases 579

6

ETD,J

Crlp.No.9903 2025

the same plane inasmuch as if any Stafe Act recognizes

their qualification as sufficient for registration in the State

Medical Register, the prohibition contained in Section

15(2)(b) of the 1956 Act will not apply.

10. 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. ln Telangana State, the

Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act is in force as

discussed above. ln simplest of terms, a person who is practicing

homeopathy medicine cannot prescribe medicines under Allopathy.

11. ln the present case the petitioner is alleged to have been

registered practitioner for Homeopathy, however he 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 and the investigation is still in progress.

12. The contention of the petitioner counsel is that the prosecution

needs to be launched by the Commissioner of Ayush and that the

present case is registered when the complaint is lodged by the

Registrar of the Telangana Medical Council, which is not tenable in

the eye of law and that there is a clear violation of Rule-8(7) of the

Andhra Pradesh Medical Council (Compulsory Rural Medical

Service and Compulsory Government Service_Renewal of

-7

7

ETD,J

Crlp.No.9903_2025

Registration, visiting or inspecting the Hospital or Nursing Home or

lnstitution) Rules, 2013 (for short, Ihe Rules') issued vide

G.O.Ms.No.129, dated 08.08.2013, where the de-facto complainant

failed to follow the procedure contemplated in Rule-8(7) of the Rules,

which is as under:-

'Whenever the Commissioner, AYUSH is in receipt of

information from the Council that a Medical Practitioner of

Ayurueda Siddha, Unani, Homeopathy and Yoga or

Naturopathy is found practicing Modern Medicine or

prescribing drugs of Modern Medicine, he shall initiate

appropriate action against such practitioner in terms of

Government Memo.No.9914/L2/97-1, dated 17.03.1997

appended to fhose rules as annexurell. The

Commissioner, AYUSH shall initiate appropriate action

within thirty days on receipt of such information from the

Council and intimate the action taken thereon to the

Council."

13. A bare perusal of Rule 8(7) of the Rules discloses that the

Ayush Commissioner shall initiate appropriate action against such

practitioner in terms of G.O. M.S. N o.891 4l L2197 -1, dated 17 .03.1997 .

The G.O.Ms.No.8914/12197-1, dated 17.03.1997, is a Circular

Memorandum issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Health,

Medical and Family Welfare (L) Department which reads as follows:-

1. lt is to inform that the Supreme Court of lndia has given

a decision in the case cited above prohibiting the Medical

Practitioners from practicing and presaibing drugs in other

system of medicine in which they are not registered.

2. lt implies that a Medical Practitioner who is registered

under Allopathic system of medicine is prohibited from

practicing and prescribing drugs in other systems of

medicine like Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani etc.,

-

8

ETD,J

Crlp.No.9903_2025

3. Similarly, the Medical Practitioners in Homeopathy,

Ayurveda, and Unani etc., should confine their practice only

to the sysfems of medicine in which they are registered and

should not practice and prescribe drugs in any other system

of medicine in which they are not registered.

4. Thus, the sale of Allopathic drugs to the Medical

Practitioners who are not registered in the Allopathic system

of medicine is an offence under the provisions of Drugs and

Cosmefics AcL Similarly, sale of Allopathic drugs to a

patient on the prescription of a Medical Practitioner who is

not registered in the Allopathic system of medicine is a/so

an offence under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics

Act.

5. Likewise, drugs belonging to other systems of medicine

like Ayurveda, Unani Homeopathy etc., should not be sold

either to the Medical Practitioners or to the patients on the

prescriptions of Medical Practitioners who are not registered

in the respective sysferns of medicines.

14. Thus it is mentioned in the above said Circular that the person

who is practicing homeopathy cannot prescribe medicines in any

other system in which they are not registered. lt is pertinent to take

note of Rule-8(1) to (10) of the Rules in its entirety which is extracted

for the sake of reference:-

Rule-8(1) The Chairman of the Council may constitute

one or more Committees each consisting of two or

three members.

(2) The Committee or Committees so

constituted sha pertorm the following functions,

namely;

(a) lnquire suomoto or on a petition presented to the

Chairman.

(b) Visit or inspect, either by giving a notice or

surprisingly, any hospital or Nursing home or

institution or places where unethical practices are

alleged to be in vogue.

(c) Visit or inspect either any hospita! or nursing home

or institution or place wherc un-qualffied persons or

-

9

ETD,J

Crlp.No.9903_2025

quacks or doctors who do not belong to Modern System

of Scientific Medicine but are practicing modern

medicine and are prescribing drugs of modern

medicine.

(d) Visit or inspect any hospital or nursing home or

institution or place where the medical practitioners

whose names were removed ftom the register are

alleged to be continuing to practice without sunendering

the certiftcate of registration without sufficient cause.

(3) Wenever information, is received that a Medical

Practitioner has been indulged in unethical practices

which are unbecoming on the part of any Medical

Practitioner, the Registrar shall make an abstract of

such information.

@) Any act of the Medical Practitioner shall be

construed as unethical, when he or she has indulged in

any act which is included in chapter 6 of lndian Medical

Council (Professional Conduct, etiquette and ethics)

Regulations-2lO2 or any act which in the opinion of the

Council is unbecoming on the part of a practitioner or

mod ern scientif ic m ed icine.

(5) Where the information in question relating to

practice of Modem Scientific Medicine or prescribing

drugs of modern medicine by a qualified practitioner of

other systems of medicine, such as Ayuruedic,

Homeopathy, Unani, Naturopathy or Sidda, the

Registrar shall make an abstract of such information.

(6) The abstract and where a complaint has been

lodged, the complaint and all other documents bearing

on the case shall be submifted by the Registrar to the

Chairman, who may ff thinks ft, instruct the Registrar to

furnish the institution concerned with a copy of the

complaint and other documents and invite the head of

such institution by means of a registered letter to submit

any explanation he may have to offer within a period of

ten clear working days.

(7) Whenever the Commissioner, AYUSH is in receipt

of infqmation from the Council that a Medical

Practitioner of Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, Homeopathy

and Yoga or naturopaw is found practicing Modern

Medicine or presuibing drugs of Modern Medicine, he

shall initiate appropriate action against such practitioner

in terms of Govemment Memo.No.891tl/L2J97-1 , dated

17.03.1997 appended to those rules as annexure-ll.

The Commissioner, AYUSH shall initiate appropriate

action within thiry days on receipt of such information

-

l0

ETD,J

Crlp.No.9903_2025

from the Council and intimate the action taken thereon

to the Council.

(8) Whenever any information is received or evidence

is brought before any Committee constituted by the

Council under caluse (iv) of Section 20 of the Act that

drugs of Modern Medicine are dispensed by Druggists

or Chemlsfs on the prescription of practitioners of other

systems of medicine, the Council on receipt of such

report from the Committee shall communicate he same

to the Drug lnspector or Assistanf Director of Drug

Control Administration with a request to take

appropriate action on the Druggist or Chemist

concerned as per the provisions of Drugs and

Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules made thereunder. lf

the council come to the conclusion that no action has

been initiated by the Drugs lnspector or fhe Assistant

Director, Drug Control Administration within a period of

thirty days, the Chairman of the Council may instruct the

Registrar to furnish the details to Director General,

Drugs Control Administration with a copy of information

received in this respect or copy of complaint and other

documents and request him to issue necessary

instructions to the Drug lnspector or Assistant Dhector

concerned.

(9) Where, in any clinic or hospital or nursing home or

other institution or place where un-qualified persons or

quacks are found practicing modern system or Scientiftc

Medicine or prescribing drugs of modern medicine,

criminal proceedings will be initiated by making a

complaint to the Station House Officer concerned as per

Section 22 of the Act.

(10) Where it is found that the Station House Officer

has not acted upon the complaint-petition of the

Council, the Chairman, APMC who may thinks fit,

instruct the Registrar to furnish the information together

with other documents on record to the Superintendent

of Police of the District Concerned or the Sub-Divisional

Police Officer with a request to instruct the Station

House Officer to initiate appropriate action in

accordance with the Law.

15. A conjoint perusal of Rule-8(9) and (10) of the Rules would

reveal that the Registrar is authorized to lodge a complaint as per

Section 22 of the TMPR Act. Therefore, in the present case, the

11

ETD,J

Crlp.No.9903 2025

complaint is lodged by the Registrar of Telangana Medical Council,

which is very much inconsonance with Sub-Rules 9 and 10 of Rule-8

of the Rules.

16. But, under Section 54 of NMCA, no Court shall take

cognizance of an offence except upon a complaint in writing by an

officer authorized by the Commission or the Ethics and Medical

Registration Board or a State Medical Council. Thus, it has to be a

complaint made in writing and the word 'complaint' is defined under

Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:

"2. Definitions -

(a) xxx

(b) xxx

(c) xxx

(d) "Complaint" means any allegation made orally or

in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking

action under this Code, that some person, whether

known or unknown, has committed an offence, but

does not include a police report."

17. Therefore, a complaint in writing has to be lodged before the

competent Court by the authorized officer and it does not include a

police officer. ln the present case, the complaint is filed before the

Station House Officer by the Registrar of the State Medical Council.

Under Section 54 of the NMCA, an officer authorized by the State

Medical Council can file the complaint. Thus, there is nothing wrong

if the Registrar files the complaint, but the said complaint has to be

t2

ETD,J

Crlp.No.9903_2025

made to the concerned Court and not before the Station House

Officer. 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.

18. As discussed supra, Sub-Rules 8,9 and 10 of Rule 8 of the

Rules empowers the Registrar to initiate the criminal proceedings by

making a complaint to the Station House Officer and when the

Station House Officer does not act upon the same, he shall furnish

the information along with other documents to the Superintendent of

Police to instruct the Station House Officer to initiate appropriate

action. As per Section 54 of the NMCA, an authorized person under

the Commission or the Ethics and Medical Registration Board or the

State Medical Council can initiate the proceedings. Thus, the

Registrar is competent to initiate the proceedings i.e., he can file a

complaint, but it has to be made in writing before the concerned

Court.

19. ln the present case, the Registrar has filed the complaint

before the Station House Officer. Hence, no Court can take

cognizance of the said complaint. Therefore, continuation of

proceedings in the present case against the petitioner is abuse of

process of law.

13

ETD,J

Crlp.No.9903_2025

20. Therefore, the proceedings in Crime No.489 of 2025 on the file

of P.S. Patancheru, Sangareddy District, are hereby quashed

against the petitioner herein. However, it is made clear that 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.

21 . Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

Dale:29.10.2025

Ds/MD