The Kerala High Court in the case Dr. Navaneeth K. Unni v State Represented by Public Prosecutor observed and has quashed the proceedings which are pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate against a Homeo Doctor for allegedly stocking and selling Homeo medicines without authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The court in the case exercised its inherent powers as stated under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC to quash the complaint and proceedings since no offence was made out.
The bench headed by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in the case observed and has stated that the inherent powers as stated under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC have to be used for quashing the complaint to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.
The court in the case observed and has considered the question whether the power under Section 482 should be exercised or not, the Court must always be guided by the principles laid down in the provision itself i.e, to prevent the abuse of process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice.
Therefore, the said court is satisfied that both those parameters are satisfied and the said complaint is required to be quashed to prevent the abuse of process of Court and also to secure the ends of justice.
The court referred to the case Priyanka Mishra v. State of Kerala, wherein the court held that ‘accused should be protected against vexations and unwanted criminal prosecution and from unnecessarily being put through the rigours of an eventual trial.’
The court also referred to the decision in the case Religare Finvest Ltd v. State of NCT of Delhi, to state that Courts should take recourse to their power to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases for meeting the ends of justice.
The Kerala High Court in the case observed and has quashed proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate against a Homeo Doctor for allegedly stocking and selling Homeo medicines without authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Therefore, the said court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC to quash the complaint and proceedings since no offence was made out.
In the present case, the private complaint was filed against the petitioner wherein it alleged that he was a fraud doctor for stocking and selling Homeo medicines in the Homeo clinic without a licence.
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 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. Thus, it has been 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.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the enquiry was conducted on July 15, 2013, when the petitioner had a valid licence to practise as a medical practitioner.
Therefore, the Court that no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. Thus, the court stated that even if the entire prosecution allegations were correct, it would still not make out an offence against the petitioner.
Further, the court quashed proceedings against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the court allowed the petition.
The counsel, Advocate Reena Abraham appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Additional Director of Prosecution Grashious Kuriakose, Public Prosecutor T R Ranjith, Advocate C P Jyothy represented the respondent.
