AMAR SARAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A. G. A. 2. An order dated 8. 10. 2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ghazipur, in Criminal Case No. 591 of 2007 Bechu Paswan v. Ratan Ku mar Rai and others, summoning the appli cants under sections 323, 392, 427, 504, 506, IPC and 3 (1) (x) S. C. /s. T. Act, has been challenged by means of this application. 3. In the said order, it is observed that the complainant was examined under sec tion 200, Cr. P. C. thereafter the statements of witnesses Musafir Paswan, P. W. 1, Geeta, P. W. 2, Lalima Kumari, P. W. 3, Virendra Singh Record Keeper, Police Office, Ghazipur, P. W, 4, Constable No. 75 Ram Pravesh, P. W, 5 and Sri Triveni Sharma, Chief Pharmacist, Primary Health Centre, Rewatipur were examined under section 202, Cr. P. C. and also certain documents, which included initial N. C. R. . No. 27/2007, copy of the medical report, the copy of the application to the S. P. Ghazipur and the re ceipt of the registration were produced. 4. The allegations in the complaint were that complainant belonged to the scheduled caste (dusadh ). The applicants, who belonged to a higher caste forcibly lifted the puwal, which was kept in the premises of the complainant. When they were stopped they became extremely angry hurled caste derogatory abuses and also threatened to finish of the complainant. Later applicant No. 1 exhorted his two sons Amit and Ritesh to beat up the complainant crying out that the dusadh is becoming very aggressive. Amit, Ritesh and Ratan Kumar beat him with kicks and fists. Medi cal examination of the injured informant Bechu Paswan was conducted by the Medi cal Officer, in-charge Primary Health Cen tre, Rewatipur. 5. Learned Counsel for the ap plicants contends that the applicants fun damental rights were violated by summon ing them in as much as the doctor, who has conducted the medical examination, was not examined under section 202, Cr. P. C. , but only the Chief Pharmacist was exam ined to prove the medical report. 6. I am of the opinion that only on that ground a summoning order cannot be set aside. All these points will be seen at the stage of trial when the evidence is led. P. C. , but only the Chief Pharmacist was exam ined to prove the medical report. 6. I am of the opinion that only on that ground a summoning order cannot be set aside. All these points will be seen at the stage of trial when the evidence is led. Even in a trial when a doctor is not exam ined, under section 294, Cr. P. C. , the other side may be called upon to admit the con tents of the medical report. Under section 291, Cr. PC. there is even a provision in ex ceptional circumstances to examine a medical witness by means of a commission. At the preliminary stage of inquiry under section 202, Cr. P. C. also it is not mandatory in each case to examine the witness on oath. 7. A Single Judge decision of this Court in Kailash Nath Pandey and another v. State of U. P. and another, 1 was relied on. In that case, the single Judge remanded the matter to the Magistrate, but it was a case where neither the doctor, who medically examined the complainant, was examined under section 202 Cr. P. C. nor X-ray plate or X-ray report were produced, nor the doc tor, who got the X-ray done, was examined. On the facts of the particular case, an order of remand may be passed. From the facts of that particular case, it cannot be said that in every case where the doctor is not exam ined under section 202, Cr. P. C. , the sum moning order must necessarily be set aside or the matter be remanded to the Court below. Therefore, there is no force in this ap plication. It is, rejected. 8. However, it is directed that if the applicants appear in the aforesaid case be fore the Court concerned within three weeks, their bail applications shall be de cided expeditiously in accordance with law. Application Rejected. .