Honble KHAN, J.–On 31.10.1996 Shri M.P. Budania, Dy. Chief Medical and Health Officer (Health), Churu camp at Rajgarh, presented a written report before the SHO, PS : Rajgarh alleging therein that on that day when he visited the local Jain Hospital in the company of Shri Mahavir Prasad, ASI, he found the present petitioners treating the patients by Allopathic system of medicine. On being inter- rogated the petitioners are said to have stated that they were administering Allopathic Drugs to the patients and were also infusing blood for treatment. On further query, Shri Budania came to know that whereas Smt. Urmil was a registered medical practitioner, Dr. Vinod Kumar Agarwal petitioner could produce no documentary evidence regarding his registration as a medical practitioner. On the basis of this written report Crime No. 324/96 for offence u/Ss. 420 IPC & 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 stands registered against the petitioners at PS : Rajgarh District Churu and the investigation is reported to be pending. (2). The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Dr. Urmil as also Dr. Vinod Kumar Agarwal were the holders of bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery degrees, from Guru Nanak Deo University, Amritsar and Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra respectively and since the subjects of their study included study of treatment by Allopathic System of the medicine, they were not ``quacks and were entitled to treat the patients by that system of medicine. It was further pointed out that Dr. Urmil was registered as a medical practitioner under the Rajasthan Deshi Chikitsa Adhiniyam, 1953 and was also imparted practical training in the use of Allopathic Drugs. Similarly, Dr. V.K. Agarwal was also imparted practical training in the use of Allopathic medicines and was registered as a medical practitioner under the aforesaid Act by the State Government. It was further pointed out that the Central Council of medicines had clarified that modern medicines means various branches of modern scientific medicine clinical and non clinical, and bio-sciences. It was thus urged that since the petitioners were autho- rised to use Allopathic medicines and treated the patients by that system, no offence under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was committed by them and therefore, the pendency of the investigation of the criminal case against them amounted to the abuse of the process of law and such abuse must be prevented. (3). The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted, that the investigation was in its inception and should not be interfered with by this Court at this stage. (4). Reliance on behalf of the petitioners was placed before me on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punam Verma vs. Ashwin Patel & Ors. (1). (5). It is the settled position of law that the powers u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. must be sparingly exercised in rarest of rare case only to prevent the abuse of the process of Court/law and to secure the ends of justice. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal (2) and Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (3) it was observed by the Apex Court that ordinarily criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR/complaint be not curbed in their very inception if the averments made in the FIR/complaint disclose of commission of certain offences. If on the reading of the FIR/Complaint, an opinion can be formed that the contents thereof discloses the commission of certain offencs then investigation/inquiry into the case by the police/Court should not be curtailed. (6). In the present case the petitioners were found to be holders of the bachelors of degrees of Ayurvedic medicine and Surgery. Subsequently they appear to have been given training and acquired knowledge of treatment by Allopathic system of medicine. They were also registered under the Rajasthan Deshi Chikitsa Adhiniyam, 1953. They may thus contend that they were qualified to treat the patients by Allopathic system of medicine as well. (7). Mr. Pradeep Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Para 31, 32 & 33 of the report in Punam Vermas case (supra ) wherein it was observed that right to practice in Allopathic System of Medicine as also the right to practice in Ayurvedic or Unani System of Medicine is regulated by separate indepedent Central and Local Acts. Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 deals, inter alia, with the registration of persons possessing requisite qualifications as Medical Practitioners in Allopathic System as also recognition of Medical Qualification and Examinations by Universities or Medical Institutions in India. Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 deals, inter alia, with the registration of persons possessing requisite qualifications as Medical Practitioners in Allopathic System as also recognition of Medical Qualification and Examinations by Universities or Medical Institutions in India. Regarding the position of a ``quack in Para 43 of the report, their Lordships observed that a person who does not have knowledge of a particular System of Medicine but practices in that System is a Quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to put it differently, a Charlatan. (8). In para 40 of the report their Lordships pointed out that the bane of Allopathic medicine is that it always has a side- effect. A warning to this effect is printed on the trade label for the use of the person (Doctor) having studied that System of Medicine. (9). In para 37 & 38 of the report their Lordships further observed that in all the System of medicines, the patient is always a human being. It is also true that Anatomy and Physiology of every human being all over the world, irrespective of the country, the habitat and the region to which he may belong, is the same. But merely because the Anatomy and Physiology are similar, it does not mean that a person having studied one System of Medicine can claim to treat the patients by drugs of another System which he might not have studied at any stage. No doubt, study of Physiology and Anatomy is common in all systems of Medicines and the students belonging to different Systems of Medicines may be taught Physiology and Anatomy together, but so far as the study of drugs is concerned, the pharmacology of all systems is entirely different. (10). Viewed in the light of the pronouncement made by their Lordships of the Apex Court in the case cited supra and keeping in mind the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court u/S. 482 Cr.P.C., it is difficult to say that the FIR did not contain such allegations against the petitioners as justified the Investi- gating Officer to investigate the case against them. As stated above, the petitioners had acquired knowledge of treatment by Ayurvedic System of Medicine and that system in its syllbi or curricular may be imparting knowledge of other Systems of medicines but it is yet to be ascertained as to whether the petitioners had acquired sufficient knowledge of the use of Allopathic drugs and were qualified to treat pa- tients by Allopathic system of medicines. In my opinion, therefore, there do not exist cogent reasons for this Court to treat the investigation pending against the petitioners as an abuse of the process of law so as to quash the FIR. (11). In view of the above, the petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.