Madras HC Quashes FIR Over Ear-Boring, Says Allegations Without Diagnosis or Treatment Don’t Show Allopathic Practice

Following an email complaint, officials inspected premises at Pamgrove Hotel on 5 March 2026 and allegedly found the petitioners performing ear-boring procedures, with surgical instruments and Schedule H drugs at the premises.

The police registered Crime No. 73 of 2026 for offences under Sections 125, 272 and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.

The first petitioner relied on her BHMS qualification and Homoeopathic registration, and both petitioners sought to quash the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The State opposed the petition as premature, arguing that the allegations required investigation.

Whether the FIR’s allegations, taken at face value, disclosed that the petitioners practised modern scientific medicine in breach of Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.

Whether the allegations disclosed the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 272 and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the FIR should be quashed under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, notwithstanding that investigation had commenced.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process; at the quashing stage, the court ordinarily does not conduct a mini-trial but considers whether the allegations, accepted in their entirety, disclose the offences alleged.

Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 prohibits practice as a qualified medical practitioner by a person not duly enrolled, but the alleged conduct must first amount to the practice of medicine.

Section 272 BNS requires a malignant act that the accused knows or has reason to believe is likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life; Section 318(4) requires deception and dishonest inducement resulting in delivery of property or valuable security.

The Court applied the quashing principles recognised in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, including where the allegations, even if accepted, do not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence.

The Court held that the FIR alleged ear-boring, but did not allege that the petitioners diagnosed or treated disease, prescribed allopathic treatment, performed an allopathic therapeutic procedure, or represented themselves as practitioners of modern scientific medicine.

The alleged presence or use of surgical instruments and unidentified Schedule H drugs, without particulars of their purpose or administration, did not by itself establish practice of modern medicine under Section 34.

The Court also found no allegation of a knowing or malignant act likely to spread a dangerous infection, as required by Section 272, or of deception and dishonest inducement to deliver property, as required by Section 318(4).

It therefore concluded that the FIR, on its face, lacked the foundational allegations necessary for the offences invoked; further investigation could not cure that deficiency for purposes of the FIR as presented.

It quashed Crime No. 73 of 2026 insofar as it concerned the petitioners and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.