Madras High Court

J.Janikiraman vs State By on 21 April, 2025

Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                                              Crl.OP.No.20249 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 21.04.2025

                                                            CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               Crl.O.P.No.20249 of 2023
                                                         and
                                               Crl.MP.No.13795 of 2023


                     J.Janikiraman                                                        ... Petitioner

                                                                 Vs.

                     1. State by:
                        The Inspector of Police,
                        Valavanur Police Station,
                        Villupuram District.

                     2. Vijayan Madhamadaki MS
                        Associate Director Welfare,
                        Villupuram Taluk,
                        Villupuram Taluk.                                           ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
                     Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to C.C.No.323 of 2019 in
                     Cr.No.24 of 2017 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II,
                     Villupuram Court, Villupuram District and quash the same.

                                     For Petitioner         : Mr.T.G.V.Ramanigopal

                                     For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja
                                                     : Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

                     Page 1 of 12



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
                                                                                                   Crl.OP.No.20249 of 2023



                                                           ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.323 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate

Court-II, Villupuram.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second

respondent/defacto complainant who is serving as a Medical Officer,

Government Hospital, Valavanur, Villupuram District. Based on the

instructions received from the Joint Director, Villupuram District, the

second respondent has inspected the petitioner's/accused's Clinic at East

Post Pondy Road, Valavanur, Villupuram District on 20.03.2020 and

found that the petitioner having studied BEMS has been practising

Allopathy Medicine. Further, Allopathy Medicines and the medical

equipments from the petitioner's clinic was seized. Thereby, the

petitioner has no valid educational qualification to practice English

medicine. Hence, the complaint.

3. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent/defacto

complainant, the fist respondent registered an FIR against the petitioner

in Cr.No.136 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420

of IPC r/w 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. After

completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )

before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Villupuram and the same was

taken cognizance C.C.No.323 of 2019. To quash the said proceedings,

the present petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

studied in Allopathy System of Elementary Medical Aid Course in

Thilaga Medical Institute, Madurai in the year 1984. In the year 2012, the

petitioner/accused also studied Diploma Course in Medical Sciences and

Essential Drugs (CMS and ED) at Suresh Paramedical Institute at

Dharmapuri. It is recognised by the Delhi Government, for which, they

have issued a certificate of completion. Now the petitioner is not

practicing English medicine, since the qualification of the petitioner is

not recognized by any medical council to practice.

5. As per order of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,

Department of Health Research, Government of India dated 05.05.2010,

there is no proposal to stop Naturo Electro Homeopathy Medicos of

India from practicing the medicine of Electropathy/Electro Homeopathy

or imparting education. Therefore, there is no ban to impart education in

the medical stream of Electropathy/Electro Homeopathy and there is no

ban on practice of Electropathy/Electro Homeopathy. . Infact, this

Court also in batch of Writ Petitions in W.P(MD).Nos.10041 of 2017 etc

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )

batch dated 28.01.2023 held that the certificate issued by the Naturo

Electro Homeopathy Medicos of India is not valid and the person who

possesses the same is not eligible to practice in any stream of the

medicine. Further, the request of recognition of Naturo Electro

Homeopathy Medicos of India was also rejected by the Government of

India for medicine. No permission can be granted to practice in the

system of Naturo Electro Homeopathy Medicos of India as it is not

recognized by the Government of India. Further, the Naturo Electro

Homeopathy Medicos of India is not a authenticated statutory body to

provide permission or certification to run institution to impart education

of Naturo Electro Homeopathy Medicos of India which has no legal

affirmation and the certificates issued by it has no legal validity. Further,

by the communication dated 12.02.2018, the Tamilnadu Government

Medical council imparted that NEHM as a system of medicine itself does

not stand recognized by the Central Government of India. However, now

the petitioner has stopped practicing any stream of medicine.

6. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the provision under

Section 17(3) of India Medical Counsel Act.

17. Rights of persons possessing qualifications

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )

included in Second, Third and Fourth Schedules to be enrolled.—(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, any medical qualification included in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Register of Indian Medicine. (2) Save as provided in section 28, no person other than a practitioner of Indian medicine who possesses a recognised medical qualification and is enrolled on a State Register or the Central Register of Indian Medicine,— (a) shall hold office as Vaid, Siddha, Hakim or 1 [physician or] any other office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority; (b) shall practise Indian medicine in any State; (c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by a law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner; (d) shall be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any court of law as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), on any matter relating to Indian medicine. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall affect,— (a) the right of a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine to practise Indian medicine in any State merely on the ground that, on the commencement of this Act, he does not possess a recognised medical qualification; (b) the privileges (including the right to practise any system of medicine) conferred by or under any law relating to registration of practitioners of Indian medicine for the time being in force in any State on a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )

(c) the right of a person to practise Indian medicine in a State in which, on the commencement of this Act, a State Register of Indian Medicine is not maintained if, on such commencement, he has been practicing Indian medicine for not less than five years; (d) the rights conferred by or under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956)[including the right to practise medicine as defined in clause (f) of section 2 of the said Act], on persons possessing any qualifications included in the Schedules to the said Act. (4) Any person who acts in contravention of any provision of sub-section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Therefore, there is no offense made out as against the petitioner under

Section 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

7. In so far as the offence to attract the offense under Section 420

of IPC, it is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 420 of the

Penal Code as follows :-

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property — 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )

which may extend to seven years, and shall also be

liable to fine.

To constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC, the ingredients are as

follows :-

(i) A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415 and

(ii) The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any person or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.

Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence

under Section 420 of IPC.

8. It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment made by the

Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. Indian Oil

Corporation Vs. NEPC India Limited and others reported in (2006) 6

SCC 736, held that the civil liability cannot be converted into criminal

liability and it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in

business circle to convert purely civil dispute in criminal case. This is

obviously on account of prevalent impression that civil law remedies are

time consuming and do not adequately protect the interest of

lender/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also,

leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )

impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal

prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to

settle civil disputes and claim which do not involve any criminal offence

by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated

and dishonoured.

9. In the case of G.Sagar Suri Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported

in 2000 (2) SCC 636, the Honourable Supreme Court of India held as

follows:-

“It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence, criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal Court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

10. It is relevant to rely upon the land mark Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana and

others Vs. Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, in

which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the following

categories of instances wherein inherent powers can be exercised in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )

order to secure the ends of justice as follows:-

“(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )

where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

Therefore, there is no offense is made out as against the petitioner under

Section 420 of IPC.

11. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is a

clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be sustained as against the

petitioner and liable to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.323 of 2019 on the

file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Villupuram is hereby quashed

and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently,

connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

21.04.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )

1. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Villupuram

2. The Inspector of Police,Valavanur Police Station, Villupuram District.

3. The Public Prosecutor,High Court of Madras, Chennai.