Homoeopathy Practitioner Cannot Prescribe Allopathy Medicines: Telangana HC [Read Order]

Telangana: The High Court of Telangana has reaffirmed that a medical practitioner registered under homoeopathy is legally prohibited from prescribing medicines belonging to the allopathy system, holding that such conduct constitutes a clear violation of the applicable regulatory framework.

However, Justice Tirumala Devi Eada quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner-accused on a crucial procedural ground: that the complaint under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 was filed before the Station House Officer instead of before the competent Court, thereby rendering the initiation of proceedings fatally defective.

The Court simultaneously clarified that the authorized officer remains at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law.

The petitioner, a registered homoeopathy medical practitioner holding Registration No. 287/H/2017, approached the High Court seeking quashing of proceedings in Crime No. 300 of 2025 registered at Sadasivpet Police Station, Sangareddy District. The case against him was that, despite holding a Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) qualification, he was found to be prescribing allopathy medicines, which is a practice prohibited under the applicable statutes.

The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 318 and 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (cheating and cheating by personation), Section 20(ii) read with Section 22 of the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968 (TMPR Act), and Section 34 read with Section 54 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (NMCA). The complaint that triggered the FIR was lodged by the Registrar of the Telangana Medical Council before the Station House Officer.

Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on an earlier order dated September 2, 2025, of a Coordinate Bench of the same Court in Criminal Petition No. 7668 of 2025 and batch, wherein proceedings against similarly situated petitioners had been quashed. It was further argued that under Rule 8(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Rules, 2013, the Commissioner of AYUSH was required to initiate action and that the complaint ought to have been lodged by that authority. Additionally, it was contended that the complaint, having been filed before the Station House Officer rather than before the competent Court, violated the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 54 of the NMCA.

On the substantive question of whether a homoeopathy practitioner can prescribe allopathy medicines, the Court answered in the negative. Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (1998) 7 SCC 579, the Court noted that a person enrolled on the State Register of Indian Medicine has no authority to practice modern scientific medicine unless also enrolled on the relevant State Medical Register. In Telangana, the TMPR Act governs this field, and accordingly, a homoeopathy practitioner cannot cross over into prescribing allopathy medicines. The Court found that a prima facie case had been made out against the petitioner and that the investigation was still in progress.

On the procedural question, however, the Court found in favour of the petitioner. Section 54 of the NMCA stipulates that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by an officer authorized by the National Medical Commission, the Ethics and Medical Registration Board, or a State Medical Council. The word “complaint”, as defined under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, means an allegation made to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action, and expressly excludes a police report. The Court held that while the Registrar of the Telangana Medical Council is a competent person to file such a complaint, it must be filed in writing before the concerned Court, not before the Station House Officer. Since the complaint in the present case was lodged before the police, no Court could legally take cognizance of the same, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the pderocess of law.

Accordingly, the proceedings in Crime No. 300 of 2025 were quashed.

The Court, however, expressly clarified that the authorized officer is free to initiate fresh criminal proceedings by filing a complaint before the competent Court in compliance with Section 54 of the NMCA.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 (State): Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor

For Respondent No. 2 (Telangana Medical Council): Mr. Sama Sandeep Reddy, Standing Counsel

Case Title: Criminal Petition No. 9871 of 2025

[Read Order]