JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The contour of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, on 9.3.2010, as soon as, the police party headed by ASI Gurdeep Singh and consisted of other police officials, reached and was present at Ram Nagar Kanchian, Maur Mandi for patrolling and checking of intoxicant drugs, in the meantime, a secret information was received that petitioner Dharam Pal and his brother Satish Kumar sons of Sukhdev Raj, exhibiting themselves as qualified doctors, were selling the intoxicant medicines, without prescription of any qualified doctor and are cheating the innocent people. They were illegally selling the intoxicant drugs and if immediately raid is conducted, then, huge quantity of such drugs can be recovered from them. Believing the information as reliable, the ASI sent the ruqqa to Police Station for registration of a case. 2. According to the prosecution that in the wake of search, the petitioners-accused were found in illegal possession of drugs of Spansmo proxivon 11100 capsules, Spas Proximol 2304 capsules, carisol 4000 tables, Lomotil 15000 tablets, Peeon-Spas-D-600 tablets, Spasmocip plus 2000 capsules, Microlit 30000 tablets, Tromrdex Plus 5800 tablets, Alpazole 05 1200 tablets, Diazepam 1000 tablets, Alprazolam .05 6200 tablets, Unizolam 6000 tablets, Fortadol 130 tablets, Alpazolam Nirder 0.5 2400 tablets and they were providing the medicines to the general public, pretending themselves to be qualified doctors, without any permit or licence. In the background of these allegations and on the basis of ruqqa, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by means of FIR No.21 dated 9.3.2010 (Annexure P2), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under section 420 IPC and section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 in the manner depicted here-in-above. 3. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report, in terms of section 173 Cr.PC. 3. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report, in terms of section 173 Cr.PC. Thereafter, the trial Court framed the charges against the accused to face the trial for the commission of indicated offences, vide impugned charge sheet dated 12.10.2011 (Annexure P3), which, in substance, is as under:- “That on 9.3.2010, at about 9.00 a.m., in the area of Maur Mandi, you both accused in furtherance of common intention of you both, cheated general public by dishonestly inducing them to get treatment from you by telling them you are qualified medical practitioner and running a Chemist Shop named as Ganesh Medical Agency and giving the medicines to the people by saying yourself as qualified doctor without having any medical practitioner licence and thus you have cheated the general public and by doing the said act you both have committed an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and without my cognizance. Secondly, on the same date, time and place, you both accused in furtherance of common intention of you both, you accused Dharampal was found in possession of Spansmo proxivon 11100 capsules, Spas Proximol 2304 capsules, carisol 4000 tablets, Lomotil 15000 tablets, Peeon-Spas-D-600 tablets, Spasmocip plus 2000 capsules, Microlit 30000 tablets, Tromrdex Plus 5800 tablets, Alpazole .05 1200 tablets, Diazepam 1000 tablets, Alprazolam .05 6200 tablets, Unizolam 6000 tablets, Fortadol 130 tablets, Alpazolam Nirder 0.5 2400 tablets and you both accused were given the medicines to the general public by saying you are qualified doctor without any medical practitioner licence and by doing the said act you both have committed an offence punishable under section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act and within my cognizance.” 4. Instead of facing the trial, the petitioners-accused have straightway jumped to prefer the instant petition to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1), charge sheet (Annexure P3) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC. 5. The case set up by the petitioners-accused, in brief in so far as relevant, was that they are running a medical shop under the name and style of M/s Ganesh Medical Agency. They are having valid licence (Annexure P1), issued by the competent authority under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1949 and no offences whatsoever are made out against them. The case set up by the petitioners-accused, in brief in so far as relevant, was that they are running a medical shop under the name and style of M/s Ganesh Medical Agency. They are having valid licence (Annexure P1), issued by the competent authority under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1949 and no offences whatsoever are made out against them. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1), charge sheet (Annexure P3) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner as described here-in-above. 6. The respondents refuted the prayer of petitioners and filed the replies, inter-alia, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of petitioners. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the replies and in order to avoid the repetition of facts, suffice it to say that the respondents have reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR (Annexure P2) and final police report. However, it will not be out of place to mention here that they have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this regard. 8. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioners were selling the drugs under valid licence (Annexure P1), so, no pointed offences are made against them, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in case Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, [2012(1) Law Herald (P&H) 679] : 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 449, are at all applicable to the facts of the instant case, wherein, it was observed that “if the petitioner had a valid licence to sell the medicines at the relevant time, then, such offence can be dealt with, under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by filing a complaint in accordance with law.” There can hardly be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioners-accused in the present controversy. 9. 9. As is evident from the record that very specific and direct allegations of cheating are assigned to the petitioners-accused that although they were not qualified doctors, but they were treating the patients as such qualified doctors and thus cheated the general public. In this manner, there are direct allegations of cheating against them. The mere fact that the licence issued to M/s Ganesh Medical Agency was renewed, vide letter (Annexure P1), ipso facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, to quash the charge sheet of the offence of cheating framed against the accused, particularly when only petitioner No.1 Dharampal was mentioned as competent person to sell the stock, whereas petitioner No.2 Satish Kumar is one of the constituents of the firm. He is even not authorized to sell the drugs. 10. As indicated here-in-above, prima facie, there is sufficient material against the petitioners that they have cheated the innocent people by treating them as competent doctors, whereas they were quack (fictitious doctors). Taking into consideration the material on record, the trial Court has rightly charge-sheeted them to face the trial for the offences in question, vide charge sheet (Annexure P3). Moreover, once the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners-accused, then, no ground for quashing the impugned FIR (Annexure P2) and charge sheet (Annexure P3), muchless cogent, is made out, in view of ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar 1994(3) RCR(Criminal) 123, which is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 11. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. 13. Needless to say that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the trial of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant direction. ---------0.B.S.0------------