CRL OP/9286/2026 of Poonam Lalith Sharma Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep by Inspector Police on 16 October 2026

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to call for the records in connection with the impugned FIR in Crime No.73 of 2026, pending investigation on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, namely the Joint Director(ACT), Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services, Teynampet, received a complaint through e-mail on 02.03.2026 and, based on the same, directed a team of officials to conduct inspection and enquiry on 05.03.2026. During such inspection at Pamgrove Hotel, the team found that the petitioners were allegedly performing ear-boring procedures and using Schedule H drugs, surgical blades, and other instruments, thereby practising modern (allopathic) medicine in violation of the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Thus, the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 involved in Crime No.73 of 2026, for offences under Sections 125, 272, and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023, Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act. Based on the same, a case has been registered by the respondent police for the aforesaid offences.

3. Mr.R.Rajarathinam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner is a qualified and registered Homoeopathic Doctor, having obtained her BHMS

degree from Nagpur University on 30.12.1996 and having registered herself with the Maharashtra Council of Homoeopathy on 30.07.2010, which registration has been periodically renewed. Further she undergone a course at the London Piercing Academy and obtained a certificate on 18.07.2023. Referring to the notification of the National Commission of Homoeopathy in F.No.3-34/2021/NCH/HEB/CC/10758, it is submitted that the BHMS course includes, inter alia, Surgery as one of the subjects, which the petitioner has studied for more than three years. Hence, it is contended that the petitioner is qualified to perform minor surgical procedures.

4. It is further submitted that though the petitioner is not registered under the Tamil Nadu Homoeopathy System of Medicine and Practitioners of Homoeopathy Act, 1971 (Act 5 of 1972), as per Section 2(8) of the said Act, “modern medicine” includes surgery. Under Section 30 of the said Act, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the Registrar. Referring to Sections 2(12) and 14 of the Act, it is submitted that only a “registered practitioner” whose name is entered in the register is recognised, and that the Council appoints a Registrar who alone is competent in this regard. In the present case, the defacto complainant is not the Registrar and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint has been registered for alleged violation of the Indian Medical Council Act,

1956, which stands repealed by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, and hence the registration of the case under a repealed provision by an unauthorised person is unsustainable.

5. Mr.R.Rajasekaran, the learned Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for R1 would submit that the present Criminal Original Petition is premature, since the investigation in Crime No.73 of 2026 only commenced and has not reached its logical conclusion. The FIR has been registered pursuant to a complaint received by the second respondent and a subsequent inspection conducted by a competent Team of officials, on 05.03.2026. During inspection found surgical blades, instruments and Schedule-H drugs and the petitioners were allegedly performing procedures which, according to the inspecting officials, amounted to practice of modern/allopathic medicine. Whether the activities carried on by the petitioners amount to practice of modern medicine, whether the drugs found at the premises were being used for allopathic treatment, whether the petitioners administered such drugs, what procedure was actually performed, and whether the petitioners qualified, authorized to undertake such procedures are all question of facts requiring investigation. These questions cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

6. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 specifically deals with the bar against persons not duly enrolled from practising medicine as qualified medical practitioners. The NMC Act is statutory under the Indian Medical Council regime. The official text of the Act contains Section 34 as well as the repeal-and-saving provision in Section 60. The specific allegation is that they were performing procedures, using surgical instruments and Schedule-H drugs, thereby practising modern/allopathic medicine. Whether those allegations are ultimately established is a matter for investigation. At this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations are inherently impossible or absurd. Hence, the learned Government Advocate prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

8. At the outset, it must be observed that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ordinarily does not embark upon an appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial. The question is whether the allegations contained in the FIR, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence. No doubt, the NMC Act contains a statutory prohibition against a person who is not duly enrolled under that enactment practising modern scientific medicine.

But the mere fact that a person is not registered under the NMC Act does not, by itself, answer the further question as to whether the activity attributed to such person amounts to "practice of medicine" within the meaning of Section 34. The allegation in the present case is that the petitioners were performing ear-boring procedures. There is no allegation in the FIR, as placed before this Court, that the petitioners were treating any disease, diagnosing any medical condition, prescribing a course of allopathic treatment to a patient, performing an allopathic therapeutic procedure, or representing themselves as registered practitioners of modern scientific medicine. The mere use of a surgical blade or an instrument during an ear- boring procedure cannot be treated as conclusive proof of the practice of modern medicine. It is a known fact, earborings are done traditionally by Goldsmith in Temples and during earboring ceremony, which is a traditional culture and there is no specific qualification requiring for the activities in performing earborings.

9. Likewise, the mere allegation regarding the presence or use of Schedule-H drugs, without identifying the particular drugs, their purpose, the manner in which they were administered or the medical treatment allegedly provided, does not by itself establish the ingredients of Section 34. The prosecution cannot substitute a conclusion of law namely, that the petitioners were "practising allopathic medicine" for the foundational facts necessary to establish such practice. It is also relevant that the first petitioner admittedly claims to possess a BHMS qualification The existence of a BHMS qualification and Homoeopathic registration assumes significance in determining whether the allegation in the FIR, on its face, establishes that the first petitioner was impersonating an allopathic medical practitioner. The prosecution has not placed any specific representation made by the first petitioner that she was an MBBS/modern-medicine practitioner, nor any specific allopathic diagnosis or treatment allegedly undertaken by her.

10. Section 272 BNS deals with a malignant act likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life. The provision requires an act done malignantly which the person knows or has reason to believe is likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life. The FIR does not allege that either petitioner knowingly or malignantly performed any act likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life. The invocation of Section 272 BNS is, therefore, wholly unsupported by the foundational facts necessary to constitute the offence. As far as Section 318(4) BNS is concerned, the FIR, as placed before this Court, contains no allegation that the petitioners deceived any person and thereby dishonestly induced such person to deliver property or a valuable security. Further, mere fact that a person may have paid consideration for an ear-boring procedure cannot, without an allegation of deception and dishonest inducement existing at the relevant time, constitute the aggravated offence under Section 318(4) BNS. There is no complaint from any one about any fake

promise, more so, at the time of inception. The essential ingredients of Section 318(4) are, therefore, conspicuously absent.

11. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that at the stage of quashing, disputed questions of fact should ordinarily be left to investigation and trial. However, there is a distinction between a case where the FIR contains factual allegations which require investigation and a case where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not satisfy the ingredients of the offences invoked. The present case falls within the latter category. The Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case recognised precisely such a situation as one in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to prevent abuse of process. The Court is also not persuaded that the mere registration of an FIR should be permitted to continue simply because the investigating agency may collect additional material during investigation. The primary question before this Court is whether the impugned FIR in its present form discloses the commission of the offences for which it has been registered. For the reasons stated above, the answer is in the negative. This Court finds that the present case falls within the parameters recognised by the Supreme Court for exercise of inherent jurisdiction, since the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences invoked and the prosecution has, in material part, proceeded under a repealed enactment. Continuation of the investigation in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to allow the present Criminal Original Petition.

12. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The FIR in Crime No.73 of 2026, pending investigation on the file of the first respondent Police, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 16-10-2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No. MPK To

1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By The Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station, Chennai (Crime No.73 of 2026)

2. The Joint Director (Acts) Office of DMS, Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Teynampet, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR , J. mpk CRL OP No. 9286 of 2026 16.10.2026