ORDER : 1. In the present case few facts are not under disputed that complainant has initially lodged an FIR against present applicants, which was registered as Crime No. 0086 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 504, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Noorpur, District Bijnor. 2. In the aforesaid FIR investigation was conducted, however, a final report was submitted on 27.04.2020. The complainant thereof filed a Protest Petition, which was considered as a Criminal Complaint by an order dated 06.12.2022. Thereafter, statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and present applicants were summoned under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 I.P.C. by impugned order dated 31.05.2023 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for applicants has mainly argued that impugned order was passed essentially on basis of a medical report of injured which has been extensively recorded and considered in the impugned order. His further argument is that the said medical report was not placed by complainant or witnesses during proceedings and was taken note possibly from document annexed with the charge sheet, which ought to not have done as it was alien to procedure prescribed for consideration of complaint case and to pass an order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. 4. It is further contended that even on basis of nature of injury, which is "Lacerated 2 x 2 cm right upper margin are inverted, blackening wound bone deep and tattooing are present and also blackening present. KUO. Opinion-above injury are KUO, Fresh and caused by fire arm" was not sufficient to summon the applicants under Section 307 I.P.C. as not only it was caused on non vital part, but was not dangerous to life also. It is on record that doctors, who examined injured as well as operated, were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The relevant part of impugned order is reproduced hereinafter: 5. The above submissions are opposed by Sri Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, though on basis of material on record, he is not able to show that above referred medical report was either placed by complainant or witnesses during their statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. except in impugned order, the learned Trial Court has noted in impugned order that medical report, supplementary report and x-ray report was available on record. So far as nature of injury is concerned, it is the argument of learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that aforesaid fire arm injury was caused when injured has tried to safe his life from a bullet aimed on him and it hit him on hand and by operation, number of pellets were taken out. 6. Heard Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Amit Rana, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. 7. The above referred facts are not under disputed that an FIR was lodged by complainant, which was investigated and finally a final report was submitted. Later on a Protest Petition was filed by complainant, which was treated as a Complaint Case and thereafter statements were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter applicants were summoned by impugned order dated 31.05.2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 I.P.C. 8. In present case, complainant got examined Dr. Ajay Dharmesh and Dr. Naresh Johari, under Section 202 Cr.P.C., who have examined and operated the injured. In their respective statements they have mentioned that injured got a fire arm injury and on operation number of pellets were taken out. For reference, said statements are reproduced hereinafter: 9. The statement of complainant Amarpal, uncle (injured) who was initially examined at P.H.C. Hospital Noorpur from where he was referred to Bijnor where operation took place was also recorded and for reference is also reproduced hereinafter: 10. Under aforesaid circumstances, on basis of statement of injured as well as statement of doctors, at this stage, it is not under disputed that injured has suffered a fire arm injury at his right forearm and he was operated also wherein pellets were recovered. Nature of fire arm injury clearly indicate that it was fired from a close range. 11. The argument of learned counsel for applicants is that the learned Magistrate could not peruse material placed alongwith the charge sheet and in present case the document is a medical report. Nature of fire arm injury clearly indicate that it was fired from a close range. 11. The argument of learned counsel for applicants is that the learned Magistrate could not peruse material placed alongwith the charge sheet and in present case the document is a medical report. Though, he may be legally correct in regard to statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. or 164 Cr.P.C. after Protest Petition was considered as a complaint but the Magistrate, who is conducting an investigation himself under the procedure as provided under Cr.P.C. for complaint case is not so handicapped that even it could not look the material annexed alongwith charge sheet, specifically a document, which could fall within fore corner of a 'public document' as deprived under Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act. It is not under disputed that medical report was placed on record during investigation, therefore, a medical report collected during investigation is a public document and contents thereof are not much in dispute. Learned Magistrate has perused the said document only in order to verify statement of injured as well as statement of doctors recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., which was completely corroborated. Therefore, there was no legal error if the Magistrate has looked into the medical report annexed alongwith charge sheet, even while passing an order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. At one stage, learned Magistrate has referred that these documents were available on record ¼i=koyh½ 12. Now, only argument left for consideration is whether referred nature of injury is prima facie sufficient to summon applicants under Section 307 I.P.C. In this regard, contents of Section 307 I.P.C. would become relevant, wherein it has been stated that "whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder and in case if hurt is caused, he may be punished either to life imprisonment which may extent to ten years". In this regard, the statement of P.W.-3 (Dr. Ajay Dharmesh), P.W.-4 (Dr. Naresh Johari) as well as statement of injured P.W.-1 (Amarpal), which are part of earlier paragraph are relevant is also reproduced hereinafter: 13. In this regard, the statement of P.W.-3 (Dr. Ajay Dharmesh), P.W.-4 (Dr. Naresh Johari) as well as statement of injured P.W.-1 (Amarpal), which are part of earlier paragraph are relevant is also reproduced hereinafter: 13. As referred above, injured has specifically stated that accused person have fired upon him aiming his chest, but since he step aside, he was hurt by fire arm on his hand and he immediately fallen down as well as the Court also takes note that P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, Doctors have also stated in their statements about nature of fire arm injury that there was a blackening, as such, it was shot from a close range. The doctors have also stated that medical report as well as supplementary report was handed over to Investigating Officer. At this stage, the Court is only considering where there are sufficient material grounds to proceed against applicants as required under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and is not conducting a mini trial whether conviction could be made out or not. Therefore, even considering statements referred above, even without looking into the medical report, nature of injury is absolutely clear that it was a fire arm injury, shot from a close range and after operation pellets were recovered. 14. In these circumstances, statement of injured become very relevant that it was aimed on his chest and therefore, essential ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C. are prima facie made out that has assailant at least knowledge that under such circumstances (i.e. when he aimed at chest of injured, if he by that act caused death he would be guilty of murder). 15. A half hearted argument is also placed on record that allegation of firing was only on two applicants, however, learned counsel has missed that it was specific case of complainant as well as injured witness that all applicants have formed an unlawful assembly and have acted in furtherance of their common object. At this stage, the Court could not fracture the story, which has been supported by witnesses including two doctors. The last argument is that it was a counterblast case, as the applicants side has lodged an FIR of an occurrence against complainant side, which took place two days prior to present occurrence. At this stage, the Court could not fracture the story, which has been supported by witnesses including two doctors. The last argument is that it was a counterblast case, as the applicants side has lodged an FIR of an occurrence against complainant side, which took place two days prior to present occurrence. However, this could not be a ground to reject a well reasoned order passed by learned Trial Court, who has meticulously examined the material on record to assign an opinion that there are sufficient ground to proceed. 16. Accordingly, all arguments raised by learned counsel for applicants have been dealt above and the Court is of considered opinion that they have no merit. 17. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned summoning order and therefore, present application is rejected.