DR. NAVANEETH K. UNNI V STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 2024 (KER) 149

Dr. Navaneeth K. Unni vs. State Represented by Public Prosecutor: Case Study (2024 KER 149)

FACTS- In the facts of the case, a private complaint was filed against the petitioner alleging that he was a fraud doctor for stocking and selling Homeo medicines in the Homeo clinic without a licence. Based on the complaint, the Drug Inspector conducted an enquiry in the clinic and found that the petitioner was registered as a medical practitioner only from June 10, 2013. However, the enquiry found that the Homeo medicines found in the clinic were purchased even before his registration.

ISSUE- Whether under inherent powers Accused Should Be Protected From Vexatious Criminal Proceedings?

The Court found that it was an admitted fact that the father of the petitioner was also a registered medical practitioner and was practising as early as 1998. It thus stated that the purchase of homeo medicines could not be termed as illegal since they were procured for the clinic conducted by the petitioner's father who has a valid medical licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for purchasing, stocking and selling such medicines.

It stated that the enquiry was conducted on July 15, 2013, when the petitioner had a valid licence to practise as a medical practitioner. As such, the Court that no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. It stated that even if the entire prosecution allegations were correct, it would still not make out an offence against the petitioner. The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the complaint and proceedings since no offence was made out.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.