HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23375 of 2025 Court No. - 92 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. This instant application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 09.12.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 341 of 2024 (State Vs. Induprakash) arising out of Case Crime No. 77 of 2024, under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sarpataha, District Jaunpur. 3.The allegation against the applicant is that without obtaining any licence to practice medicine, the applicant is involved in such activity and is running franchise of YTM Ayurvedic from his home. It is also alleged in the FIR that the applicant does not possess any degree or diploma in medical education and when he was asked to remove the franchise from home, threats were extended and attempt to commit physical assault was also made. 4. Submission is that the informant being younger brother of the applicant, has maliciously lodged FIR and since the Drug Inspector, in his report dated 04.05.2024, has indicated that, on inspection of the aforesaid shop, no stock of medicine was found, submission of charge sheet and taking cognizance in the matter is unwarranted and cannot be sustained. 5. Learned AGA submits that in the entire affidavit it is not disclosed that the applicant has no concern with the franchise or that he possesses Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rishu Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Indu Prakash Pal Alias Indu Prakash Dhangar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and another .....Opposite Party(s) medical qualification and merely because on one particular day stock was not found, it cannot be said that the applicant is innocent. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that mere fact that the informant is real brother of the applicant would not wash out the offence if committed by the applicant. In the entire affidavit there is no averment regarding co-relation or non-corelation of the applicant with the franchise of Y.T.M. Ayurvedic. Mere absence of stock on the date of inspection, in itself, does not rule out veracity of allegations levelled against the applicant or other material collected by the I.O. 7. Considering the nature of offence alleged, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter. 8. The application is rejected with liberty to the applicant to avail other statutory remedies in accordance with law. September 16, 2025 AKShukla/- NA528 No. 23375 of 2025 2 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad