MAITHLI SHARAN, J. This is a peti tion under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , invoking the inherent powers of this Court, filed by the petitioner Dr. Smt. Chandrawati, for quash ing the charge-sheet, order taking cog nizance dated 28-2- 1996 and further proceedings in Case No. 3650 of 19%, State v. Smt. Chandrawati, arising out of Crime No. 585 of 1995, under Section 304-A I. P. C. , Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow. 2. Briefly stated the factual matrix of the case is thus: The petitioner is a leading and famous Gynaecologist and Obstetrician and is a Professor in Gynaecology and Obstetrics in Queen Marys Hospital, of King Georges Medical College, Lucknow. She runs a Nursing Home in the name of Krishna Medical Centre, I- Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow and the said Nursing Home provides all out-door and in-door facilities and all types of surgeries are taken there. The opposite party No. 3 contacted the petitioner for the delivery of his wife, who was later on got admitted in the Nursing Home on 16-7-1995 at 11. 30 AM. After medical check- up and examination of Smt. Radhika, wife of the opposite party No. 3, the petitioner came to the conclusion that Caesarian method was necessary in order to get the child delivered safely and to safeguard the life of Smt. Radhika. Thus, she told the opposite party No. 3 in this regard. In the morning of 17-7-1995, when the Caesarian operation was being per formed, Smt. Radhika developed a rare complication which caused her death. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she had taken all care and caution to the best of her ability but the life of Smt. Radhika could not be saved. The opposite party No. 3 was fully satisfied with the efforts made by the petitioner and he even refused for the post mortem examination of Smt. Radhika. However, later on, on 21-7-1995 the op posite party No. 3 lodged a First Informa tion Report, registered as Crime No. 585 of 1995, under Section 304-A, I. P. C. at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow, with an ul terior motive. 4. The Police conducted the investiga tion in the case and the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on 28-2-1996. 4. The Police conducted the investiga tion in the case and the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on 28-2-1996. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence and passed sum moning order against the petitioner on the same day i. e. 28- 2-1996 for her appearance on 1-5-1996. The petitioner surrendered earlier in the Court and she was released on bail. On the above allegations made in the petition, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the con tinuance of proceedings in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow amounts to mis-use of the process of law as there was no material on record to take cognizance of the case against the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Ad vocate in detail. The First Information Report dated 21-7-1995 (Annexure No. 1) goes to indicate that on 17-7-1995 the Caesarian operation of Smt. Radhika, wife of opposite party No. 3 was performed by the petitioner, Dr. Smt. Chandrawati at about 7. 00 a. m. , she was taken in the opera tion theatre and just after about fifteen minutes, the petitioner Dr. Smt. Chandrawati came out from the operation theatre and informed that Smt. Radhika had delivered a female child, and all of the sud den, there was hue and cry in the operation theatre that Smt. Radhika had died. The petitioner, Dr. Smi. Chandrawati who had gone to her house was called from there and she also informed the petitioner that his wife had died. 6. In the First Information Report, it was mentioned that Smt. Radhika, wife of opposite party No. 3 had died on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner. During the investigation, the statements under Section 161 Cr. P. C. from various wit nesses were recorded and after that the charge-sheet was filed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that a false and concocted case has been made out against the petitioner with mala fide inten tion and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner. His contention is that Smt. Radhika had died because of the develop ment of rare complication. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that a false and concocted case has been made out against the petitioner with mala fide inten tion and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner. His contention is that Smt. Radhika had died because of the develop ment of rare complication. According to him, the statements of the witnesses and allegations made in the First Information Report are false and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner, and thus, the charge-sheet deserves to be quashed. 8. Looking to the First Information Report (Annexure-1) coupled with the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. recorded during the investiga tion, I find that a cognizable offence,prima- facie, is made out against the petitioner. That apart, it is now a settled legal position that interference under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing a criminal proceeding should be done very sparingly and in exceptional cases. In the case of State of Haryana & others v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; it has been laid down by Honble the Supreme Court that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It has further been held that the extra-ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Courts to act ac cording to its whim or caprice. The Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F. I. R. or the complaint. In another case State of M. P. v. Dr. Krishna Chandra Saksena, 1997 JIC 305 (SC), also the Apex Court has held likewise. 9. Thus, in view of the above settled legal position the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the First Information Report in the instant case cannot be looked into by this Court, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. PC. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .