Homoeopathy Practitioner Cannot Prescribe Allopathy Medicines: Telangana High Court Quashes Case For Want Of Complaint U/S 54 NMC Act

The Telangana High Court has held that a Homoeopathy medical practitioner cannot prescribe Allopathy medicines, reiterating the position laid down by the Constitution Bench in Dr Mukhtiar Chand v. State of Punjab. At the same time, the Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against such a practitioner on the ground that the statutory requirement under Section 54 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (NMCA) was not complied with.

Justice Tirumala Devi Eada was dealing with a Criminal Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of proceedings of a Crime registered by Sadasivpet Police Station, Sangareddy District.

The petitioner is a registered Homeopathy Medical Practitioner. According to the complaint, though qualified in BHMS, he was prescribing Allopathic medicines. On this basis, offences were registered 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 (TMPR Act), and Section 34 read with Section 54 of the NMCA against him.

The learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana Medical Council contended that a person qualified in one system of medicine cannot practice another system, and that prescribing Allopathic medicines by a Homeopathy practitioner amounts to a violation of statutory provisions, attracting penal consequences.

The High Court examined the statutory framework, including the provisions of the BNS, the TMPR Act and the NMCA. Referring to Dr. Mukhtiar Chand v State of Punjab, the Court observed that even according to the Constitution Bench, a person qualified in one stream cannot prescribe medicines pertaining to another stream unless permitted by State law.

“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. In Telangana State, the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act is in force as discussed above. In simplest of terms, a person who is practicing homeopathy medicine cannot prescribe medicines under Allopathy”, the Court reiterated.

The Court recorded that, as per the averments in the complaint, the petitioner, though a registered Homeopathy practitioner, was prescribing Allopathy medicines. On that basis, the Court noted that a prima facie case was made out and investigation was in progress.

However, it then proceeded to examine Section 54 of the NMCA, which provides that no Court shall take cognisance of an offence under the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Commission, the Ethics and Medical Registration Board, or the State Medical Council.

The Court reasoned by referring to the definition of “complaint” under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., which excludes a police report.

In the present case, the Registrar of the Telangana Medical Council had lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer. The Court held that although the Registrar is competent to initiate proceedings, such a complaint must be made in writing before the relevant Court, not before the police.

“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. In 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 MCA, 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 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”, the Court held.

Thus, holding that the procedural lapse affects the case in such a manner that cognisance of the offence cannot be taken, it held that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

Consequently, in view of the non-compliance with Section 54 of the NMCA, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings. However, it clarified that the authorised officer is at liberty to initiate proceedings strictly in accordance with Section 54 of the Act.

Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 9871 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order