CRM-M-28026-2015 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (124) CRM-M-28026-2015 (O & M) Date of decision: 28.07.2026 Braham Parkash and anr. ...Petitioners V/s State of Haryana ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Ankur Lal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.270 dated 15.07.2015 under Section 420 IPC and Sections 15(2) and 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 registered at Police Station Rewari, District Rewari (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The FIR (Annexure P-1) came to be registered at the instance of Dr. Sarvjeet Thapar, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Rewari and Mr. Hemant Grover, District Drug Control Officer, Rewari and reads as under:- From- Dr. Sarvjeet Thapar, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Rewari, Hemant Grover, District Drug Control Officer, Rewari. To the SHO, Police Station City Rewari. Subject: For registration of the FIR against Sh.Mahender Singh and Sh. Braham Parkash. Respected Sir, With reference to the aforementioned subject, today on 15.7.2015, a team constituted by Civil Surgeon, Rewari, in which Dr.Sarvjeet, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Rewari and Sh.Hemant Grover, DCO, Rewari were included, inspected SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.29 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-28026-2015 (O & M) ::2:: Dr. Jagdish Chander Yadav, New Janta Hospital, Rewari Road, Rewari on the basis of complaint. In this the aforesaid persons were using allopathic medicines and those were sealed at the spot and were put in a cardboard box and were sealed with the seal They are practising allopathic medicines without degree and are playing with the health of the public. Legal action may be taken against them. Along with this letter, the following documents are being given. 1. Spot Memo-2 pages 2. Seizure Memo-1 Page 3. List of Medician-1 Page 4.Printed Referral Slip- 5 in number 6. I.D. Proof of Sh. Mahender Singh Photo Copy of Adhar Card- 1, Photocopy of Ration Card of Sh.Braham Parkash -1, Photocopy of Matric certificate of Sh.Braham Parkash-1, 7.Gatta Box Containing Medicines as per list sealed containing six seal over it. Sd- Dr. Sarvjeet Dy.C.S.Rewari. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The nephew of petitioner No.2-Mahender Singh, namely, Dr. Vikrant Yadav is a BAMS doctor as is apparent from the registration certificate (Annexure P-2). The recovered medicines would belong to him, if at all. He is not nominated as an accused. So far as the petitioners are concerned, petitioner No.2 being a resident of the same premises, his presence at the place of occurrence is natural. Petitioner No.1- Braham Parkash is a cousin of petitioner No.2. There is absolutely no evidence that either of the petitioners was practising medicine or treating patients. Therefore, the FIR (Annexure P-1) and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed. SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.29 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-28026-2015 (O & M) ::3:: 4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that 14 different kinds of injections were recovered from the premises. The petitioners were found sitting therein at the time of the raid and therefore, have rightly been nominated as accused. He, however, fairly concedes that Dr. Vikrant Yadav who runs a clinic in the said premises was not found present there and has not been nominated as an accused. He also concedes that the petitioner No.2-Mahender Singh is the uncle of Dr. Vikrant Yadav. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 reads as under:- 15. Right of persons possessing qualifications in the Schedules to be enrolled.-[(1)] Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, the medical qualifications included in the Schedules shall be sufficient qualifications for enrolment on any State Medical Register. (2)[ Save as provided in section 25, no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register,- (a) shall hold office as physician or surgeon or any other office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority; (b) shall practice medicine in any State; (c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner: (d) shall be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any Court of Law as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) on any matter relating to medicine. SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.29 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-28026-2015 (O & M) ::4:: (3) Any person who acts in contravention of any provision of sub-section(2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both]. 7. A perusal of the aforementioned provision would reveal that for an offence to be made, there must be evidence that the person is practising medicine. 8. In the present case, other than the recovery of various different kinds of injections, there is absolutely no evidence that either of the petitioners was practising medicine or treating any patient. There is no statement of any witness recorded during the course of the investigation to the effect that either of the petitioners was holding an office as a physician/surgeon or was practising medicine. The clinic is being run at the premises by one Dr. Vikrant Yadav who for certain inexplicable reasons has not been nominated as an accused. He happens to be the nephew of petitioner No.2-Mahender Singh. 9. Keeping in view the aforementioned discussion, I find considerable merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same is allowed and the present FIR (Annexure P-1) alongwith all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. 10. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. July 28, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) sukhpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.29 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh