Poonam Lalith Sharma vs The State of Tamilnadu rep by Inspector Police

CRL OP.No.9286 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON: 25-09-2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL OP No. 9286 of 2026
and
Crl.M.P.No.6555 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA010822082026}
1. Poonam Lalith Sharma
2.Shilpa ... Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By
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. ... Respondent(s)
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Rajarathinam
Senior Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajasekaran
Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) for R1
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to call for the
records in connection with the impugned FIR in Crime No.73 of 2026,
st
pending investigation on the file of the 1 Respondent and quash the
same.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL OP.No.9286 of 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
st
2026, pending investigation on the file of the 1 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
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL OP.No.9286 of 2026
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,
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL OP.No.9286 of 2026
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
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL OP.No.9286 of 2026
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.
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL OP.No.9286 of 2026
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
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL OP.No.9286 of 2026
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
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL OP.No.9286 of 2026
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
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL OP.No.9286 of 2026
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.
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL OP.No.9286 of 2026
M.NIRMAL KUMAR , J.
mpk
CRL OP No. 9286 of 2026
16.10.2026
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )