Dismissed

Ramachandran v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Sept 2025CRL OP/26066/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR Cr.No.197/2024 registered under Sections 318(4) BNS, 2023 and 15(3) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 for alleged practice of allopathy without qualification. Court held factual claims such as whether petitioner only sold drugs cannot be decided without a mini trial or roving enquiry, citing Gunmala Sales Private Limited v. Anu Mehta, (2015) 1 SCC 103, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ramachandran Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.26066 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.26066 of 2025 & Crl.M.P.No.17697 of 2025

¶7

Ramachandran.M ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Inspector of Police C-4 Police Station Morappur, Morappur High Road Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu – 635 305

¶10

M.Vasanth ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records and quash all the proceedings in Cr.No.197/2024 now pending investigation on the file of the first respondent.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Perinbamuthu For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

FIR in Cr.No.197/2024 registered for the offences punishable under

¶15

Sections 318(4) of BNS, 2023 and 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is sought to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner has not practiced allopathy. According to the petitioner, he has only license to sell the allopathic drugs.

¶16

1/4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.26066 of 2025

¶19

The very crux of the allegations in the FIR indicate that the petitioner was practicing Allopathy without any degree and medicines have been seized in the presence of the Drug Inspector, Tahsildar and other officials.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials placed on record.

¶21

At the outset, this Court is of the view that all these factual aspects cannot be decided in this petition and this Court cannot conduct roving enquiry or mini trial. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gunmala Sales Private Limited Vs. Anu Mehta and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 103 has held that High Court cannot conduct a mini trial or roving enquiry in a 482 petition.

¶22

Such view of the matter, at this stage, I am not inclined to quash the FIR against the petitioner. A ccordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶23

23.09.2025

¶24

dhk

¶25

Neutral Citation :Yes/No

¶26

2/4

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.26066 of 2025