( 1 ) HEARD applicants counsel for the learned A. G. A. It appears that the first information report lodged by respondent No. 3 was investigated and police submitted final report. On a protest petition being presented by respondent No. 3, the learned Magistrate went through the case diary and took cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and summoned the applicants as accused persons.

( 2 ) THIS order of summoning was challenged by the applicants in criminal revision No. 80 of 1995 which was dismissed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, by the order dated 6-7-1996. On the basis of some observations made in the case of Kailash Choudhary v. State of U. P. , 1994 All LJ 174 : (1994 Cri LJ 67) it appears that the applicants filed objections before the learned Magistrate concerned challenging the summoning order. By the impugned order dated 4-5-1998 the said objections have been rejected by the District and Sessions Judge and he has held that after going through the case diaries vis-a-vis injury reports a prima facie case under Sections 323/504/506, I. P. C. and Section 3 (1) (x) S. C. S. T. Act 1989 has been made out aga