Ramagiri Navakanth vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 5256 Tel

Telangana High Court

Ramagiri Navakanth vs The State Of Telangana on 2 September, 2025

Author: N.Tukaramji

Bench: N.Tukaramji

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

           CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7668, 7669 & 7691 of 2025


COMMON ORDER:

I have heard Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

argued on behalf of Mr. B.Vamsidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners, Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Mr. Sama

Sandheep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Medical

Council appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. Since the contentions raised, the issues requiring consideration,

and the questions of law involved in these matters are substantially

analogous, all the petitions were heard together and are accordingly being

disposed of by this common order.

3. Criminal Petition No.7669 of 2025 is filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS') for

quashment of proceedings in Crime No.393 of 2025 on the file of the

Police Station, KPHB Colony, Cyberabad District against the

petitioner/accused.

Criminal Petition No.7691 of 2025 is filed under Section 528 of

the BNSS for quashment of proceedings in Crime No.222 of 2025 on the 2 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

file of the Police Station, Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy District against

the petitioner/accused.

Criminal Petition No.7668 of 2025 is filed under Section 528 of

the BNSS, 2023 for quashment of proceedings in Crime No.342 of 2025

on the file of the Police Station, Sangareddy Rural, Sangareddy District

against the petitioner/accused.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.05.2025, the Respondent

No.2/Telangana Medical Council (for short 'theTMC')/de facto

complainant conducted a surprise inspection of the clinics run by the

petitioners/accused in Cyberabad and Sangareddy. It was alleged that the

petitioners were practicing allopathic medicine without possessing the

requisite qualifications. Based on the inspection, the TMC, through its

Registrar and Vigilance Officer, lodged a complaint alleging that the

petitioners were administering IV fluids, injections, and allopathic drugs in

violation of Rule 8(2)(9) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Rules,

2013 (APMCR); Section 20(ii) read with Telangana Medical Practitioners

Registration Act, 1968(TMPR Act); Sections 34 of the National Medical

Commission Act (NMCA); and Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Consequently, the related crimes

were registered against the petitioners.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended

that the registration of crimes without conducting any preliminary enquiry 3 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

is ex facie an abuse of process. He further submitted that even as per the

contents of the complaint, the petitioners are duly qualified BAMS degree

holders, having valid registration with the Government of Telangana,

Board of Indian Medicine, and the National Commission for Indian System

of Medicine Act, 2020 (NCISM Act, 2020). Their clinics are duly

registered, and they have undergone internships at Government

Hospitals, thereby gaining practical clinical experience. It was emphasized

that the petitioners have never represented themselves as MBBS doctors.

Rather, they are engaged in legally permissible medical practice which

stands protected under Section 17(3)(b) of the Indian Medicine Central

Council Act, 1970 (IMCC Act, 1970).

Learned Counsel further relied on the Notification issued by the

Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) in 1996 and the Ayush

Memorandum dated 30.03.2017, both of which permitted Ayurvedic

practitioners to practice modern scientific medicine to a limited extent. He

also contended that no complaint has been filed by an authorized officer

under Section 50 of the NCISM Act, 2020, and that the TMC has no suo

motu power under Rule 8(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council

Rules, 2013 (APMC Rules). Thus, there exists a clear procedural

irregularity. Moreover, the complaint lacks particulars regarding

prescriptions or instances of impersonation, which are necessary to

invoke Sections 318 and 319 of the BNS. It was further argued that the

complaint is motivated, intended to suppress Ayush practitioners, and to 4 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

monopolize the practice of allopathic medicine. Accordingly, the

registration of crimes against the petitioners is illegal, baseless, and

motivated.

Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that a similar issue is

pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Indian Medicine

Graduates Association v. Delhi Medical Association & Others (SLP (C)

No. 26145/2016), where an interim direction has been issued restraining

coercive action against persons practicing the integrated system of

medicine pursuant to degrees or diplomas awarded by recognized

Universities. Reliance was also placed on the decisions in (i) S. Arockia

Vargheese v. Sub-Inspector of Police, Sudhamalli Police Station - 2010

SCC OnLine Mad 5560; (ii) T.N. Siddha Medical Graduates' Association

v. Indian Medical Association - 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 217; and (iii) Dr.

Mukhtiar Chand and Others v. State of Punjab and Others - (1998) 7

SCC 579. On these grounds, it was prayed that the proceedings be

quashed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/TMC refuted the

submissions of the petitioners. He argued that the petitioners, though not

qualified in allopathic medicine, were nonetheless practicing and

prescribing allopathic drugs in their clinics, which constitutes an illegal

practice amounting to quackery. It was further contended that the legal

position is well settled that persons holding qualifications in Indian

systems of medicine are not entitled to practice or prescribe allopathic 5 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

medicine. The TMC, being the competent authority, is empowered to

initiate prosecution. The petitioners' argument that respondent No. 2

ought to have reported the matter to the National Commission for Indian

System of Medicine, which alone could act under the NCISM Act, was

termed implausible, since the restriction under Section 50 of the Act

applies only to complaints under the NCISM Act itself, and does not curtail

the TMC's authority to lodge complaints under other applicable laws. It

was further argued that the privilege available to registered practitioners

under the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968

amended in 2013(TMPR Act) extends only to the field of medicine in

which they are qualified, and cannot be stretched to permit them to

practice allopathy.

Counsel relied upon the decision of the Three-Judge Bench of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and others v. The State of

Punjab - (1998) 7 SCC 579, as well as a judgment of the Delhi High

Court, in support of this contention. As the investigation is still at a

nascent stage, it was submitted that any interference would prejudice the

process of law. Accordingly, dismissal of the petitions was prayed for.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor adopted the submissions

advanced by counsel for respondent No. 2, and further asserted that the

TMC is duly authorized under the Medical Council Rules to initiate the

proceedings. Hence, dismissal of the petitions was sought.

6 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

8. I have perused the materials on record and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel.

9. Admittedly the petitioners asserts that they are qualified BAMS

graduates and were registered under Telangana Board of Indian Medicine

(TBIM) and the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act,

2020 (NCISM Act). The preliminary contest raised by the petitioners is

that the respondent No.2/TMC has no authority to initiate prosecution by

lodging a police report.

10. The petitioners' prime contest is that as per Rule 8 (7) of APMC

Rules the allegations against the petitioners should have been placed

before the Commissioner of Ayush, who in turn would consider and

initiate the proceedings and directly lodging police report by the

Respondent No.2/TMC is against the prescribed mandatory procedure.

Further citing the authority in S.Arockia Vargheese v. Sub Inspector of

Police, Sudhamalli Police Station - 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 5560 pleaded

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the police not to interfere with

the practice of the Siddha practitioners who are having B.S.M.S.

qualification, either suo motu or based on some complaints given by

public. If at all, there are persons, who are aggrieved by the conduct of

such medical practitioners, they have to petition the Tamilnadu Siddha

Medical Council or the Director of Health Services and the interference of

the police in such matters would demoralise the qualified practitioners of 7 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

the Indian Systems of Medicine. Further referred to Tamilnadu State

Medical Graduates Association (supra) and pleaded that the High Court of

Madras in this matter considering various aspects observed that medical

professionals must be saved from unauthorised complaints of negligence

or malpractices and safeguard should be made. No blanket permissions

can be issued to the police to arrest or to prosecute so called quacks

identified by the Indian Medical Association.

11. In this regard, the stand of the respondent No.2 is that medical

practice being State subject importing the prescriptions in the state of

Tamilnadu is not proper and lodging of police report by the respondent

No.2/TMC which is statutory body and it is permissible under Rule 8 (9) of

the APMC Rules.

12. Before proceeding further to examine the action to be taken under

TMPR Act and APMC Rules, it would be appropriate to consider the

powers and functions of the committees under medical council set out

under Rule 8 of the APMC Rules. The prescriptions are summarized as

here under;

(a) Constitution of Committees:

The Chairman may constitute committees consisting of 2-3

members to conduct inquiries and inspections. These Committees

may inquire suo motu or on petitions, may inspect hospitals, 8 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

nursing homes, or institutions, with or without notice, where

unethical practices are alleged, unqualified persons, quacks, or

non-allopathic practitioners are found practicing modern medicine

or prescribing modern drugs, de-registered practitioners continue

practice without surrendering their registration certificates.

(b) Complaints Handling:

The Registrar prepares abstracts of information on unethical

practices, as defined under Chapter VI of the Indian Medical

Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations,

2002. Similar procedures apply where practitioners of Ayurveda,

Homeopathy, Unani, Naturopathy, or Siddha are found practicing

modern medicine. Complaints and supporting documents may be

forwarded to concerned institutions for explanation.

(c) Referral to Competent Authorities:

Non-allopathic practitioners practicing modern medicine, action

must be initiated by the Commissioner, AYUSH, within 30 days, in

terms of Government Memo No. 8914/L2/97-1 dated 17-03-1997.

Similarly, chemists dispensing modern drugs on prescriptions of

non-allopathic practitioners, the Council refers the matter to the

Drugs Inspector/Drug Control Authority under the Drugs and

Cosmetics Act, 1940. If no action is taken within 30 days, the 9 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

matter is escalated to the Director General, Drugs Control

Administration.

(d) Proceedings Against Quacks:

Where unqualified persons or quacks are found practicing modern

medicine, the Council must lodge a complaint with the local police

under Section 22 of the Act. If the police fail to act, the matter shall

be escalated to the Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional

Police Officer for enforcement.

13. A careful reading of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council

Rules, 2013 reveals that it contemplates five distinct situations, each with

a corresponding legal mechanism for enforcement.

First, where unqualified persons or quacks, having no recognized

medical qualification, are found to be practicing modern medicine.

In such cases, the Medical Council is required to lodge a complaint with

the local police under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical

Practitioners Act, 1968, together with the Rules framed there under. If the

police fail to act, the matter must be escalated to the Superintendent of

Police or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer for enforcement.

Second, where de-registered practitioners of modern medicine continue

to practice without surrendering their registration certificates.

Such conduct constitutes professional misconduct and attracts 10 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

disciplinary action under Rule 8(2)(c) of the APMC Rules read with the

Code of Medical Ethics, 2002, by the Medical Council. Where the

continued practice amounts to illegal medical practice, police intervention

and penal action may also be warranted.

Third, where registered practitioners of modern medicine engage in

unethical practices in violation of the prescribed professional code of

conduct. In this scenario, the Medical Council, upon conducting inquiry

and inspection, is empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings,

including suspension or removal from the register, under the Indian

Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations,

2002. Depending on the nature of the violation, the matter may also be

referred to the concerned institution for explanation or, if the misconduct

amounts to a criminal offence, escalated to the police.

Fourth, where non-allopathic practitioners, such as those qualified in

Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani, Naturopathy, or Siddha are found to be

practicing modern medicine in contravention of law.

In such cases, upon receipt of information from the Medical Council, the

Commissioner, AYUSH, is mandated to initiate appropriate administrative

and regulatory action under Government Memo No. 8914/L2/97-1, dated

17-03-1997. The Commissioner is bound to act within thirty days, and

failure to do so is open to administrative challenge.

11 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

Fifth, where chemists dispense modern drugs on the basis of

prescriptions issued by non-allopathic practitioners. In such cases, based

on the report of the Medical Council, proceedings are to be initiated by the

Drugs Inspector or Drugs Control Authority under the Drugs and

Cosmetics Act, 1940, which may include both regulatory and criminal

measures depending on the violation. If no action is taken within thirty

days, the matter is to be escalated to the Director General, Drugs Control

Administration.

14. Further, the Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Dr.Mukhtiar Chand (supra) while considering a similar context, whether a

person qualified the integrity course of Ayurvedic and Unani from

universities are entitled to practice and prescribe allopathic medicine has

held in para Nos.20, 35, 38, 40 and 47 as follows:

"20. It may be noted that since 'level, medical and other professions' is them 26 of Fist III [Concurrent List] of Seventh Schedule to our Constitution, both the State Legislatures and the Parliament have enacted on the subject of medical profession. Now all these systems of medicines are governed by Central Acts. The Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 (which has repealed 1933 Act) regulates modern system of medicine; the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 regulates Indian medicine and The Homeopathic Central Council Act, 1973 regulates practice of Homeopathic medicine. Here we are not concerned with Homeopaths in regard to practice of allopathic medicine by a homeopath, this Court concluded thus, in Poonam Verma vs. Ashwin Patel, (1996) 4 SCC 332:

"A person who does not have knowledge of a particular system of medicine but practices in that system is a quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to put it differently, a charlatan."

12 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

35. Points 2 and 3 have some over lapping so it will be convenient to discuss them together. The right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation trade or business in no doubt a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. But that right is subject to any law relating to the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation or trade or business enacted under clause 6 of Article 19. The regulatory measures on the exercise of this right both with regard to standard of professional qualifications and professional conduct have been applied keeping in view not only the right of the medical practitioners but also the right to life and proper health care of persons who need medical care and treatment. There can, therefore, be no compromise on the professional standards of medical practitioners. With regard to ensuring professional standards required to practice allopathic medicine the 1956 Act. was passed which deals also with reconstitution of the Medical Register. Thus, for the first time an Indian Medical Register for the whole of India came to be maintained from 1956. In the 1956 Act, Section 2(f) defines "medicine" to mean 'modern scientific medicine' in all its branches and includes surgery and obstetrics, but does not include veterinary medicine and surgery and the expression recognized medical qualification is defined in Section 2(h) to mean any of the medical qualifications included in the Schedules to the Act.

38. For the present discussion, the germane provision is Section 15(2)(b)of the 1956 Act which prohibits all persons from practicing modern scientific medicine in all its branches in any State except a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register. There are two types of registration as for the State Medical Register is concerned. The first is under Section 25, provisional registration for the purposes of training in the approved institution and the second is registration under Section 15(1). The third category of registration is in the Indian Medical Register' which the Council is enjoined to maintain under Section 21 for which recognised medical qualification is a prerequisite. The privileges of persons who are enrolled on the Indian Medical Register are mentioned in Section 27 and include right to practice as medical practitioner in any part of India. 'State Medical Register' in contra-distinction to 'Indian Medical Register', is maintained by the State Medical Council which is not constituted under 1956 Act but is constituted under any law for the time being in force in any State; so also a State Medical Register is maintained not under 1956 Act but under any law for the time being in force in any State regulating the registration of practitioners of 13 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

medicine. It is thus possible that in any State, the law relating to registration of practitioners of modern scientific medicine may enable a person to be enrolled on the basis of the qualifications other than the 'recognised medical qualification' which is a pre-requisite only for being enrolled on Indian Medical Register but not for registration in a State Medical register. Even under the 1956 Act, 'recognized medical qualification' is sufficient for that purpose. That does not mean that it is indispensably essential. Persons holding 'recognised medical qualification' cannot be denied registration in any State Medical Register. But the same cannot be insisted upon for registration on a State Medical Register. However, a person registered in a State Medical Register cannot be enrolled on Indian Medical Register unless he possesses 'recognized medical qualification'. This follows from a combined reading of Sections 15(1), 21(1) and 23. So by virtue of such qualifications as prescribed in a State Act and on being registered in a State Medical Register, a person will be entitled to practice allopathic medicine under Section 15(2)(b) of the 1956 Act.

40. We have perused the Bombay Medical Act, 1912, Bihar and Orissa Medical Act, 1916, Punjab Medical Registration Act 1916, Rajasthan Medical Act 1952 and Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 which regulate maintenance of registers of medical practitioners and the entitlement to practice allopathic medicine. Under those Acts State Medical Registers are maintained. Section 7(3) of the Bombay Act of 1912, enabled the Provincial Government, after consulting the State medical council, to permit the registration of any person who was actually practicing medicine in Bombay Presidency before 25th June, 1912, this seems to be the only case of registration without requisite qualification. Further persons possessing Ayurvidya Visharad of the Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth of Poona, obtained during the years 1921-1935 (which was included in the Schedule to that Act on 31st. September, 2939 pursuant to Notification No. 3020/33 dated 12.9.1939) were entitled to be registered in the State Medical Register; this is the only Ayurvedic qualification on the basis of which persons were eligible to be registered on the State Medical Register in Maharashtra; further with regard to rural areas, the prohibition to practice allopathic medicine under that Act did not apply provided a person had commenced practice in any village in the rural area prior to 1912. None of the petitioners has claimed benefit of these exceptions. We could not find any other provision which enables a person, other than those possessing qualification prescribed in the Schedules to the Acts, to be registered on the State Medical Register to practice allopathic 14 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

medicine. So it can be observed that if any State law relating to registration of Medical practitioners permits practice of allopathic medicine on the basis of degree in integrated medicines, the bar in Section 15(2)(b) of the 1956 Act will not apply.

47. A harmonious reading of Section 15 of 1956 Act and Section 17 of 1970 Act leads to the conclusion that there is no scope for a person enrolled on the State Register of Indian medicine or Central Register of Indian Medicine to practise modern scientific medicine in any of its branches unless that person is also enrolled on a State Medical Register within the meaning of 1956 Act."

15. In the light of the above legal frame work and settled position of law

it is clear that the registered practitioners of Indian Medicine are not

entitled to prescribe allopathic medicine and such practice is

impermissible. Nonetheless, Rule 8 of the APMC Rules prescribes that in

the cases involving unqualified persons or quacks i.e., individuals without

any recognized qualification in medicine and not registered, the Medical

Council is bound to file a criminal complaint with the police. Whereas, in

the present matter on hand, the allegation of the Respondent No.2/TMC

is that the petitioners who are registered practitioners under the system of

Indian Medicine are prescribing modern system of medicine. This

imputation is taken as it is, the same would not qualify the category of

quackery, but rather under the fourth situation identified above, namely,

non-allopathic practitioners practicing modern medicine. As such, the

prescribed course of action under the Telangana Medical Practitioners

Registration Act, 1968, and the Andhra Pradesh Medical council rules

should be upon information, the Commissioner, AYUSH is the competent 15 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

authority to take up further course of action. In effect, it shall be held that

the Respondent No.2/TMC directly lodging police report for prosecution is

impermissible under the prescribed Rules.

16. The other allegation imputation against the petitioners is under

sections 34 of the National Medical Commissions Act, 2019(NMC Act).

34. Bar to practice.--(1) No person other than a person who is enrolled in the State Register 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 of the Indian 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 India 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.

17. Section 31 of the NMC Act prescribes National Register and State

Register of modern Scientific System of Medicine and Section 32(5) the

National Commission for Indian System of Medicines Act, 2020(NCISM 16 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

Act), prescribes that every State Medical Council shall maintain and

regularly update the State Register in the specified electronic format and

supply a physical copy of the same to the Board of Ethics and

Registration for Indian System of Medicine within three months of the

commencement of this Act. This position is prima facie making clear that

the Medical Council has to maintain distinct registers at National and

State level for the practitioners of modern scientific medicine and Indian

System of Medicine.

18. Thus the privileges pointed to by the petitioners shall also require

examination and whether the privileges and the statute would come to the

aid of petitioners' case is an aspect to be considered. The reference of

the petitioners that the notifications of Central Government of Indian

Medicine, office memorandum which prescribe that the allopathic

medicine to the extent of training received by them in modern medicine

would insulate the petitioners from prescribing/practicing allopathic

system of medicine would be another aspect which requires examination.

19. Howsoever, Section 54 of the NMC Act requires mention here. This

provision prescribes that, no Court may take cognizance of offences

punishable under the Act except upon a written complaint made by an

authorized officer of the National Medical Commission, the Ethics and

Medical Registration Board, or the relevant State Medical Council. As

noted earlier the prosecution proceedings were initiated upon the police 17 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

report of the Respondent No.2/TMC. For this foundational defect, this

accusation cannot be maintained.

20. The other allegation against the petitioners is under sections 318

(4) and 319 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita, 2013 (BNS).

To constitute an offence of Cheating, a person commit an act of

deception, and fraudulent or dishonest inducement of another person, to

deliver property, or to consent to the retention of property, or to do or omit

an act that he would not have done or omitted but for the deception,

and such act or omission causes, or is likely to cause, damage or harm to

body, mind, reputation, or property. Dishonest concealment of facts also

amounts to deception.

Further, Cheating by personation is an act to pretends to be

another person, or knowingly substitutes one person for another, or

misrepresents his own or another's identity.

The primary right to lodge a police report lies with the

victim/complainant who has been deceived (or whose property/security

has been affected). However, since cheating and cheating by personation

are cognizable offences, any person with knowledge of the offence may

set the criminal law in motion by filing an FIR, upon which the police are

bound to investigate. However the police report must indicate the

particulars and the prima facie case. In this view, initiation of proceedings

by the Respondent No.2/TMC is ex facie acceptable, in the present police

report, the particulars of the persons who are deceived and the manner of 18 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

impersonation are conspicuously absent. In the circumstances, the

allegation against the petitioners per se that they have prescribed modern

scientific medicine by holding registration under Indian system of

medicine alone, without some particular, would fall short in making out a

prima facie case of cheating and impersonation.

21. It is settled position that though under Section 528 of BNSS this

Court is empowered to quash the first information report to prevent the

abuse of process of law or to secure ends of justice, this jurisdiction shall

be exercised with care and caution. It has been held in State of Haryana

and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others -1992 AIR 604 and M/s

Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. v. The State of Maharashtra - AIR 2021 SC

1918, it has been held that for quashment of first information report the

Court must satisfy that the F.I.R. or criminal proceedings is frivolous,

vexatious or oppressive or abuse of process of Court and quahsment of

the F.I.R. or criminal proceedings is necessary to secure ends of justice.

Further the aspects whether the F.I.R. was filed with mala fide intention or

to harass or intimidate the accused; filed for political or personal vendetta;

F.I.R. did not disclose any offence and no prima facie case is against the

accused, this can be exercised. It is also well settled that the Court shall

not conduct a detailed enquiry but contention of injustice or abuse of

process of legal process.

19 NTR,J CRLPs_7669,7691&7668_2025

22. In the above noted findings, for deviating the prescribed procedure

and absence of the material particulars in pointing cheating and

impersonation, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in the

respective crimes are liable to be and are accordingly quashed. However

the rights of the Respondent No.2 are expressly reserved to proceed

against the petitioners as per the prescriptions under relevant provisions

and may seek prosecution with requisite particulars/details.

Accordingly, Criminal Petition Nos.7668, 7669 and 7691 of 2025

are allowed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date:02.09.2025 ccm