Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, CrPC is directed against the order dated 15.01.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bikaner (for short, "the trial Court"), whereby the petitioner was discharged from the offence under Section 304 IPC; however, it was directed to frame a charge against him for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC. Aggrieved by the Order impugned framing charge, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. I have also carefully gone through the record of the trial Court. .3. Complainant Laxmi Narain lodged an FIR No. 81 on 18.08.2003 alleging therein that due to negligence of the doctor, the death of his brother Jagdish Bhati has been caused. In the FIR, inter alia, it was also alleged that his brother late Jagdish Bhati was suffering from throat disease and, therefore, .on 09.05.2003, at about 6:00 p.m., his brother went to Dr. N.K. Sonis residence, who, on medically examining the patient, wrote a prescription on a slip after having charged the fee of Rs. 100/-. On the basis of the prescription slip, he purchased the medicines from Bikana Medicos and thereafter went to his house situated in Gangashahar, contacted the petitioner and showed him the prescription slip written by Dr. Soni and requested the petitioner for giving injection to his brother. The petitioner assured that he would come to his residence and administer the injection. However, the petitioner did not go to the house of the complainant and, therefore, the complainant again came to petitioners house, whereupon the petitioner informed that he is not feeling well and suggested the complainant to take his son Prem, who would administer the injection to his brother. At about 8:30 p.m., co-accused Prem, after seeing the prescription slip of Dr. Soni, administered the injection (Lynx). At the time of administering the injection, Jagdish suddenly made complaint of head-ache and froath started coming from his mouth. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the petitioner and the petitioner advised to take Jagdish to PBM Hospital, Bikaner. Jagdish was taken to PBM hospital, where he was declared dead. The post-mortem of the dead-body was conducted. Soni, administered the injection (Lynx). At the time of administering the injection, Jagdish suddenly made complaint of head-ache and froath started coming from his mouth. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the petitioner and the petitioner advised to take Jagdish to PBM Hospital, Bikaner. Jagdish was taken to PBM hospital, where he was declared dead. The post-mortem of the dead-body was conducted. According to the Medical Officer, the opinion regarding the cause of death shall be given after receipt of chemical examination report and the report of Histo-Pathology examination, for which visceras had been preserved and sealed. The police investigated the matter. During investigation, the opinion was sought from the Medical Board. Vide letter No. 578 dated 16.06.2003, the Medical Board opined that the medicines which had been prescribed by Dr. N.K. Soni for accute Tonselitis Pherenkes disease have been correctly prescribed and for the said disease, injections Lynx/Rincocyal and Dicloran/Dynbipar, Tablet Nirmolid MD and syrup Mucaine jel prescribed by Dr. Soni are the medicines for the cure of the said disease. The Medical Board also opined that for the disease accute tonsilitis Pherenkes, there is no laboratory test and it can be digonised by seeing the symptoms of the patient and, therefore, the medicines prescribed by Dr. Soni for the said disease are fully effective. After investigation, the police did not file any challan against Dr. N.K. Soni. However, on 31.07.2003, the police filed challan against the petitioner and co-accused Prem Prakash for the offence under Section 304, IPC. After hearing the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that prima facie no offence under Section 304, IPC is made out; however, the offence under Section 304-A, IPC is made out and accordingly, the learned trial Court sent the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner under Section 228 CrPC for trial of the case. .4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that firstly the petitioner was reluctant to go for injecting the medicines prescribed; however, at the repeated requests, he himself did not go to inject medicine to patient Jagdish as petitioner was not feeling well and co-accused Prem Prakash was taken. Even as per the evidence so far collected by the police, it was at the insistence of the complainant that petitioner asked him to take Prem who would inject the medicine to Jagdish. Even as per the evidence so far collected by the police, it was at the insistence of the complainant that petitioner asked him to take Prem who would inject the medicine to Jagdish. The petitioner, at no point of time, had seen the prescription suggested by Dr. Soni. There is absolutely no evidence on record showing that the prescription slip was shown to the petitioner and co-accused Prem Prakash injected the medicine under petitioners guidance, supervision or control. The petitioner himself was feeling unwell and, therefore, there was hardly any occasion for the petitioner to know about the nature of the injections to be administered and the precautions to be taken before injecting the same. Except that the petitioner told the complainant to take co-accused Prem Prakash for administering the medicine, there is absolutely no evidence connecting accused-petitioner Prahlad with the commission of crime. .5. Section 304-A, IPC reads as under:-"Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." 6. An offence under Section 304-A, IPC is committed by doing a rash or negligent act. The act of the accused must be proximate and the direct cause of the death. 7. The very essential ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 304-A, IPC is that the act complained of must be rash or negligent. In the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest any rash or negligent act on the part of the petitioner. It may be negligent act of co accused Prem Prakash, who, without ensuring the safety of the patient or without conducting pre-test, administered the medicines prescribed by the doctor, but at any rate, the petitioner was neither present at the place where the medicines were injected, nor he injected the medicines to the deceased. Even it is not the case of the prosecution that the medicines injected to the deceased we under the supervision or control of the petitioner. 8. Even it is not the case of the prosecution that the medicines injected to the deceased we under the supervision or control of the petitioner. 8. In Juggankhan vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 831 , the Honble Supreme Court held as under:-"Where the accused, who was registered as a Homoeopath, administered to the patient suffering from guinea worm, 24 drops of stramonium and a left of Dhatura without studying its effect and the patient died of poisoning, the accused was guilty under Section 304-A and not under Section 302, Penal Code. The poisonous contents of the leaf having not been satisfactorily established, the prosecution failed to prove that the does given to the deceased was necessarily fatal. Therefore, Section 299 did not apply and it cannot be held that the accused administered the stramonium drops and Dhatura with the knowledge that he was likely by such an act to cause the death of the deceased. Stramonium and Dhatura leaf are poisonous and in no system of medicine, except perhaps Ayurvedic system, the Dhatura leaf is given as cure for guinea worm. It is a rash and negligent act to prescribe poisonous medicines without studying their probable effect." .9. In Dr. Suresh Gupta vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2004 CrLJ 3870 , a patient was a young man with no history of an heart ailment. The operation to be performed for nasal deformity was not so complicated or serious. He was not accompanied even by his own wife during the operation. From the medical opinions produced by the prosecution, the cause of death was stated to be "not introducing a cuffed endo-tracheal tube of proper size as to prevent aspiration of blood from the wound in the respiratory passage. Honble Supreme Court observed that this act attributed to the doctor, even if accepted to be true, can be described as negligent act as there was lack of due care and precaution. The Apex Court held that for this act of negligence the doctor may be liable in tort but his carelessness or want of due attention and skill cannot be described to be so reckless or grossly negligent as to make him criminally liable. The Apex Court held as under:- ."When a patient agrees to go for medical treatment or surgical operation, every careless act of the medical man cannot be termed as criminal. The Apex Court held as under:- ."When a patient agrees to go for medical treatment or surgical operation, every careless act of the medical man cannot be termed as criminal. It can be termed criminal only when the medical man exhibits a gross lack of competence or inaction and wanton indifference to his patients safety and which is found to have arisen from gross ignorance or gross negligence. Where a patients death results merely from error or Judgment or an accident, no criminal liability should be attached to it. Mere inadvertence or some degree of want of adequate care and caution might create civil liability but would not suffice to hold him criminally liable. To convict, therefore, a doctor, the prosecution has to come out with a case of high degree of negligence on the part of the doctor. Mere lack of proper care, precaution and attention or inadvertence might create civil liability but not a criminal one. Thus the act complained against the doctor must show negligence or rashness of such a higher degree as to indicate a mental state which can be described as totally apathetic towards the patient. Such gross negligence alone is punishable." .10. It is, no doubt, true that the scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction is very limited. However, in Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, 1976 (3) SCC 736 , the Honble Supreme Court held that where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused, the process issued by the Magistrate can be quashed on such case being. The guidelines have been given by the Honble Apex Court in Smt. Nagawwas case (Supra) that in the following cases, the order of Magistrate issuing process can be quashed or set-aside:- .(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; .(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; .(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and .(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of complaint by legally competent authority and the like. 11. In Madhvrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1996 (1) SCC 692, the Honble Supreme Court held that the legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appeal in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. 12. In the instant case, as discussed above, there is absolutely no evidence, even if it remains unchallenged or uncontroverted, to hold the conviction of the petitioner. 12. In the instant case, as discussed above, there is absolutely no evidence, even if it remains unchallenged or uncontroverted, to hold the conviction of the petitioner. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner exhibited a gross lack of competence or in action and wanton indifference to the safety of the deceased patient. However, prima facie, there appears such evidence against co-accused Prem Prakash who has not challenged the order framing charge against him. 13. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.01.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 172/2003, directing to frame charge qua the petitioner, is set-aside and the petitioner is discharged from the offence under Section 304-A, IPC. The stay petition also stands disposed of .