[Section 482 CrPC] Accused Should Be Protected From Vexatious Criminal Proceedings: Kerala HC Provides Relief To Homeo Doctor

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated that inherent powers under Section 482 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.

“While considering 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. In the instant case, this Court is satisfied that both those parameters are satisfied. The complaint is required to be quashed to prevent the abuse of process of Court and also to secure the ends of justice.”

The Court reached the above conclusion relying upon the decision in Priyanka Mishra v. State of Kerala (2023), wherein it was held that “accused should be protected against vexations and unwanted criminal prosecution and from unnecessarily being put through the rigours of an eventual trial.”

It also referred to the decision in Religare Finvest Ltd v. State of NCT of Delhi (2023), to state that Courts should take recourse to their power to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases for meeting the ends of justice.

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.

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.

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

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Reena Abraham

Counsel for Respondent: Additional Director of Prosecution Grashious Kuriakose, Public Prosecutor T R Ranjith, Advocate C P Jyothy

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 149

Case title: Dr.Navaneeth K.Unni v State Represented By Public Prosecutor

Case number: CRL.MC NO. 6638 OF 2018

Click Here To Read/Download The Order