{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.785 OF 2010 Asif Ahmad s/o Anis Ahmad PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. G.N.Chincholkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 13th October 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for quashing of the First Information Report No.32/2010, registered against the petitioner on 29th July 2010 by the Hadgaon Police Station, Tq-Hadgaon, Dist-Nanded. It appears that an offence punishable u/s 3 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioner’s Act 1961 has been registered against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is practicing medicine though he does not hold the requisite registration from the Maharashtra Medical Council. According to {2} the petitioner, the petitioner was earlier practicing in Ayurvdic medicine, however, after deletion of section 37 in the Maharashtra Medical Practitioner’s Act, the petitioner is practicing in Electro Homeopathy and Naturopathy and as such no registration is required. 2. The First Information Report as well as the statements recorded during the investigation show that the petitioner is not practicing only in electro homeopathy and naturopathy but is also giving injections and prescribing medicines. A charge sheet, in the aforesaid crime, has been filed. In such circumstances it would be wholly impermissible for this Court to evaluate and examine as to whether the petitioner is only practicing electro homeopathy and Naturopathy. The contention of the petitioner that he practices only electro homeopathy and naturopathy, is a defence which the petitioner may eventually take in the trial. The aforesaid defence cannot be examined at this stage. The only consideration which would prevail before the Court at the time of quashing of the First Information Report is whether the First Information Report prima facie discloses commission of offence. 3. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, according to us, no case for quashing of the First Information Report is made out. We however, wish to clarify that in the event the petitioner applies for discharge, the trial court may examine and decide the said application on its own merits, uninfluenced by any {3} observations which may have been made by us in this order. 4. There being no merits in the petition, the petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/cwp785-10