ORDER : Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. Petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C.No.2914/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. He seeks to quash all proceedings against him in the above case. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 18(c) and 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (‘the Act' for short). 2. The proceedings in C.C.No.2914/2015 arose out of a private complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector on the basis of information received from Sri.P.P.Jomon, who alleged that petitioner is a ‘fraud Doctor' practicing Homeopathy after stocking and selling Homeopathic medicines from the premises of ‘M/s.Panacea Homeo Clinic', Vadanappilly Junction, Thrissur without any authority. Pursuant to the complaint, the Drugs Inspector conducted an enquiry which revealed that bills of homeopathic medicines were kept in the clinic, without the accused having any drug license nor any qualification to practice as a Medical Practitioner. The complaint also alleged that the accused registered himself as a homeopath on 10.06.2013 and hence the purchase and storing of medicines prior to that date was without authority and contrary to provisions of Section 18(c) of the Act. It was also alleged that accused had procured homeopathic medicines in violation of Section 22(1)(cca) of the Act and thereby committed the offences alleged. 3. Smt.Reena Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner is a Homeopathic Practitioner duly registered on 10.06.2013 and that the inspection was conducted only on 15.07.2013, wherein, the medicines purchased prior to his registration as a Homeopathic Practitioner were allegedly seized. It was submitted that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are assumed to be admitted, still none of the offences are made out as petitioner's father himself was a Homeopathic Medical Practitioner and that the Clinic was being conducted prior to 10.06.2013 and after 10.06.2013, by petitioner's father. According to the learned counsel, the fact that petitioner's father was a Homeopathic Medical Practitioner even on the date of inspection is admitted as is evident from Annexure-A4, which is not even disputed and therefore, the homeopathic medicines purchased and stored in ‘Panacea Homeo Clinic' cannot be said to be procured illegally or in violation of the Act. 4. According to the learned counsel, the fact that petitioner's father was a Homeopathic Medical Practitioner even on the date of inspection is admitted as is evident from Annexure-A4, which is not even disputed and therefore, the homeopathic medicines purchased and stored in ‘Panacea Homeo Clinic' cannot be said to be procured illegally or in violation of the Act. 4. Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, the learned Additional Director of Prosecution assisted by Sri.T.R.Renjith, learned Public Prosecutor contended that on the date of inspection that is, 15.07.2013 though the petitioner had been registered as Homeopathic Medical Practitioner, the bills seized from the building indicated purchase of medicines in January 2012 and May 2013, all of which were prior to the date of registration of the petitioner as a Doctor. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the exemption granted Under Rule 123 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 are not applicable to the petitioner and the same is available only to a person, who is a registered Medical Practitioner and on the date of procurement of the medicines by the petitioner, he was not a registered Medical Practitioner. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. 6. Concededly, petitioner's father was a Medical Practitioner on the date of inspection and even before that Annexure-A4 indicates that petitioner's father became a registered Homeopathic Doctor, as early as on 10.06.1998 and the said registration was valid even on the date of inspection. Therefore, the procurement of medicines and payment in 2011, 2012 and 2013 cannot be said to be per se illegal, since it was procured for the Homeopathic Clinic conducted by petitioner's father. Merely because petitioner's could have personally collected the medicines cannot be treated as procurement by the petitioner. The medical clinic was also being run by the petitioner's father who all the valid licenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for purchasing stocking and selling such medicines. 7. Apart from the above, on the date of inspection which is 15.07.2013, the petitioner had already become a registered Medical Practitioner. In the above perspective, I am of the view that no purpose would be achieved by continuing the prosecution. The entire prosecution allegation even if it is assumed to be correct would not make out any offence against the petitioner. 8. In the above perspective, I am of the view that no purpose would be achieved by continuing the prosecution. The entire prosecution allegation even if it is assumed to be correct would not make out any offence against the petitioner. 8. In a recent decision in Priyanka Mishra v. State of Kerala 2023 SCC Online SC 978 the accused should be protected against vexations and unwanted criminal prosecution and from unnecessarily being put through the rigours of an eventual trial. Further, in the decision in Religare Finvest Ltd v. State of NCT of Delhi 2023 SCC Online SC 1148, it was held that though the power to quash criminal proceedings should not be lightly exercised, refusal to take recourse to that power, in cases hat require or demand it would be like being blind to justice, which the Courts can scant afford to be. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, all proceedings in C.C.No.2914/2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad are hereby quashed. This Crl.Miscellaneous Case is allowed.