Order : 1. By way of filing this instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 0073/2022 dated 24.03.2022, lodged at Police Station Chohtan, District Barmer, for the alleged offence under Section 17(4) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. 2. The present case stemmed from a complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner at Police Station Chohtan, District Barmer, alleging that the petitioner had been engaged in medical practice without possessing the requisite legal documents. It had been asserted that, in the presence of the Additional Chief Medical & Health Officer, Barmer, and the Tehsildar, Tehsil Dhanau, a team had conducted a raid at Jodhpur Medical & General Store, Itada, District Jodhpur, where the petitioner had been allegedly found practicing medicine. During the raid, certain medical equipment, medicines, and bills had been recovered and subsequently seized. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 0073/2022 dated 24.03.2022 had been registered against the petitioner for offences under Section 17(4) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. However, the petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated, as he had merely been engaged in the sale of medicines and medical instruments in his duly licensed medical store, Jodhpur Medical & General Store, and had never undertaken any form of medical practice. It had further been averred that, prior to the registration of the FIR, the petitioner had received a show-cause notice dated 23.03.2022 from the Block Chief Medical Officer, Chohtan, alleging that he had been practicing allopathy without authorization and directing him to submit relevant documents and an explanation within three days. However, the impugned FIR had been registered on the very next day, without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. Aggrieved by the registration and investigation of the impugned FIR, and having no alternative remedy, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the FIR. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the impugned FIR had been lodged with a malafide intent to harass him, despite the absence of any prima facie offence. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the impugned FIR had been lodged with a malafide intent to harass him, despite the absence of any prima facie offence. It had been asserted that the petitioner, being duly qualified with a Diploma in Pharmacy (D. Pharma) and possessing a valid license to run a medical store, had merely been engaged in the lawful business of selling medicines and medical instruments, without practicing medicine in any manner. The petitioner had further submitted that he had been served with a show-cause notice dated 23.03.2022 by the Block Chief Medical Officer, Chohtan, directing him to furnish documents and an explanation within three days; however, the impugned FIR had been registered on the very next day, without affording him an opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. It had been urged that the allegations in the FIR were ex-facie baseless and did not disclose any cognizable offence, rendering its continuation a manifest abuse of the process of law. The petitioner had, therefore, prayed for the quashing of the impugned FIR under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to prevent undue harassment and miscarriage of justice. 4. Heard the learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. Court Observations and Analysis 5. Upon careful perusal of the facts and legal provisions involved in the present case, this Court is inclined to examine the statutory framework governing the allegations against the petitioner. The matter primarily revolves around the purported illegal medical practice undertaken by the petitioner, thereby allegedly violating Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and Section 17(4) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. Legal Position under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 6. Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, delineates the right of persons possessing qualifications included in the Schedules to be enrolled. Sub-section (2) of this provision explicitly mandates that no individual, unless duly enrolled on a State Medical Register, shall be permitted to practice medicine in any State, hold office as a physician or surgeon, issue medical or fitness certificates, or give expert testimony in a Court of law on matters related to medicine. Sub-section (2) of this provision explicitly mandates that no individual, unless duly enrolled on a State Medical Register, shall be permitted to practice medicine in any State, hold office as a physician or surgeon, issue medical or fitness certificates, or give expert testimony in a Court of law on matters related to medicine. Any contravention of this statutory injunction, as provided under Section 15(3), invites a penal consequence of imprisonment extending up to one year, a fine extending to one thousand rupees, or both. The Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is reproduced as follows- RIGHT OF PERSONS POSSESSING QUALIFICATIONS IN THE SCHEDULES TO BE ENROLLED. 15. 1. Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, the medical qualifications included in the Schedules shall be sufficient qualification 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 on any matter relating to medicine. 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. Assuming for a moment that the petitioner was not a registered medical practitioner under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the very act of engaging in medical practice, irrespective of his possession of a Diploma in Pharmacy (D. Pharma), would amount to a prima facie violation of Section 15(2). The statutory embargo on medical practice without valid registration is absolute and unequivocal. The petitioner, having failed to establish his enrollment under the State Medical Register, cannot be deemed competent to engage in medical treatment or diagnosis in any form. The statutory embargo on medical practice without valid registration is absolute and unequivocal. The petitioner, having failed to establish his enrollment under the State Medical Register, cannot be deemed competent to engage in medical treatment or diagnosis in any form. Legal Position under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 8. Similarly, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, prescribes a corresponding restriction upon persons not possessing a recognized medical qualification in Indian medicine. As per Section 17(2), no individual, unless enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine or the Central Register, shall be permitted to hold office as a Vaid, Siddha, Hakim, or physician in any governmental or local authority institution, practice Indian medicine, issue fitness certificates, or tender expert medical testimony before a Court of law. Any contravention of Section 17(2) is punishable under Section 17(4), with imprisonment for a term extending up to one year, or a fine extending to one thousand rupees, or both. The legal provision is reproduced below- 17. Rights of persons possessing qualifications included in Second, Third and Fourth Schedules to be enrolled. (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, any medical qualification included in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Register of Indian Medicine. (2) Save as provided in section 28, no person other than a practitioner of Indian medicine who possesses a recognised medical qualification and is enrolled on a State Register or the Central Register of Indian Medicine,- (a) shall hold office as Vaid, Siddha, Hakim or [physician or] any other office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority; (b) shall practise Indian medicine in any State; (c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by a 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 Indian medicine. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall affect,- (a) the right of a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine to practise Indian medicine in any State merely on the ground that, on the commencement of this Act, he does not possess a recognised medical qualification: (b) the privileges (including the right to practise any system of medicine) conferred by or under any law relating to registration of practitioners of Indian medicine for the time being in force in any State on a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine; (c) the right of a person to practise Indian medicine in a State in which, on the commencement of this Act, a State Register of Indian Medicine is not maintained if, on such commencement, he has been practicing Indian medicine for not less than five years; (d) the rights conferred by or under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956)[including the right to practise medicine as defined in clause (1) of section 2 of the said Act), on persons possessing any qualifications included in the Schedules to the said Act. (4) 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. 9. The prosecution’s contention that the petitioner was engaging in medical practice without the requisite legal authorization finds a basis in Section 17(2) of the 1970 Act. The statutory framework does not provide any exception or relaxation for individuals who are engaged solely in the sale of medicines but simultaneously undertake activities falling within the domain of medical practice. If the petitioner was involved in the act of diagnosing, prescribing, or treating patients without possessing valid registration, the offence under Section 17(4) of the 1970 Act would stand attracted. Cognizability and Classification of Offences under the CrPC 10.An essential question that arises in the present matter is whether the offences under Section 15(2) of the 1956 Act and Section 17(4) of the 1970 Act are cognizable or non- cognizable. Notably, neither the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, nor the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, explicitly categorizes these offences as cognizable or non- cognizable. Notably, neither the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, nor the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, explicitly categorizes these offences as cognizable or non- cognizable. In such circumstances, reference must be made to the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides the classification of offences against other laws. 11.In accordance with Part II of the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the classification of offences under laws other than the Indian Penal Code is as follows: II.—CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES AGAINST OTHER LAWS Offence Cognizable or non-cognizable Bailable or non-bailable By what court triable Ifpunishable withdeath,imprisonment forlife, orimprisonment for more than7 years Cognizable Non-bailable Court of Session. If punishable withimprisonment for3 yearsandupwardsbut not more than 7 years Ditto Ditto Magistrate of the first class. Ifpunishable withimprisonment forless than3 years orwith fineonly. Non-cognizable Bailable Any Magistrate. 12.As per Part II of the First Schedule of the CrPC, if an offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years, it shall be classified as non-cognizable and bailable, unless specified otherwise in the enactment itself. Since both Section 15(3) of the 1956 Act and Section 17(4) of the 1970 Act prescribe a maximum punishment of one year, these offences, by operation of law, fall within the category of non-cognizable and bailable offences. Applicability of Sections 154 and 155 of CrPC 13.With this determination, the procedural requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, must be examined. 1. Section 154(1) of the CrPC mandates that an officer in charge of a police station shall register an FIR only when the information relates to a cognizable offence. Since the offences in the present case are non-cognizable, the very foundation of the FIR becomes questionable. The provision reads as follows- 154. Information in cognizable cases (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf 2. Section 155 of the CrPC prescribes that in the case of a non-cognizable offence, the police officer shall enter the information in a separate register prescribed by the Government and refer the informant to the Magistrate. The police are not authorized to investigate such an offence without obtaining prior approval from a Magistrate having jurisdiction. The statutory provision is reproduced below- 155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases (1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate (2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial 14. In the present case, the police authorities have proceeded with the investigation and the registration of the FIR in a manner that is patently violative of the mandate of Section 155(2) of the CrPC. No record has been produced to suggest that the investigating officer obtained prior approval from the jurisdictional Magistrate before proceeding with the case. This procedural lapse renders the FIR and subsequent investigation legally untenable and liable to be quashed. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice 15. A significant aspect that warrants consideration is the procedural unfairness in the manner in which the FIR was lodged. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 23.03.2022, directing him to furnish documents and an explanation within three days. However, the FIR was registered on the very next day (24.03.2022), without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. This hasty registration of the FIR suggests a premeditated and malafide exercise of power, designed to curtail the petitioner’s right to due process. The maxim “Audi Alteram Partem”, a fundamental tenet of natural justice, mandates that no person shall be condemned unheard. The arbitrary registration of the FIR, without allowing the petitioner to submit his explanation or defend his position before the competent authority, constitutes a violation of procedural fairness and renders the entire process vitiated. Conclusion and Final Directions 16. The maxim “Audi Alteram Partem”, a fundamental tenet of natural justice, mandates that no person shall be condemned unheard. The arbitrary registration of the FIR, without allowing the petitioner to submit his explanation or defend his position before the competent authority, constitutes a violation of procedural fairness and renders the entire process vitiated. Conclusion and Final Directions 16. Considering the above legal and factual matrix, the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 17. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. The FIR No. 0073/2022 dated 24.03.2022, registered at Police Station Chohtan, District Barmer, is quashed and set aside on the ground that the offences alleged are non- cognizable, and the investigation was conducted in contravention of Section 155(2) of the CrPC. The police authorities are restrained from arresting the petitioner in connection with the impugned FIR. At best, the complainant may approach the competent Court of jurisdiction with a private complaint. 18. The stay petition stands disposed of.