JUDGMENT 1. - Learned P.P. accepts notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, looking to the limited question involved in this petition, the same is finally being disposed of. 2. As alleged in the petition Smt, Ugam Kanwar lodged an F.I.R. No. 5/98 at Police Station, Desuri, on which offence under section 376/511 IPC was registered which, on completion of investigation, resulted in filing of a final report (negative) in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Desuri. The first informant being aggrieved, filed a protest petition against the final report filed by the police, on which the learned Magistrate proceeded to record evidence of the first informant as well as her witnesses and thereafter, by the impugned order dated 30.11.98, took cognizance of the offence under section 376/511 I.P.C. and consequently, the accused has been summoned by issuing a warrant of arrest and his production before the trial court on or before 8,1.99. Hence, this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, presently, without entering into the merits of the petition, has mainly requested, for looking to the aforesaid circumstances specially when, after appropriate investigation into the allegations of the F.I.R., concluded that no offence as alleged by the first informant was committed by the accused-petitioner and filed the final report as above but, however, the statement of prosecution under section 161 Cr.P.C. and recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C., there are material improvements, resulting in the impugned order. Besides, the submission is that the parties are on enimincal terms and litigations are going on and looking to the relationship of the parties, at any rate, presently this is a case in which arrest of the accused-petitioner is not warranted and, instead, in the circumstances of the case, the lower court may be directed to summon the accused-petitioner by issuing bailable warrant instead of warrant of arrest as ordered by the impugned order. 4. 4. Having heard both the sides and having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, though there is no justification nor there is material to entertain any objection in regard to merits of the impugned order, since the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all these objections at the time of arguments when the court proceeds to frame charges, if any, or otherwise any order is passed while disposing of this petition, it is ordered that the trial court shall issue a bailable warrant as per appropriate terms and conditions instead of warrant of arrest issued by the trial court, which shall be withdrawn immediately without execution, for appearance of the accused-petitioner on a suitable and convenient date to be fixed by the trial court. In case after execution of bailable warrant, the petitioner still fails to appear before the lower court, the lower court shall be at liberty to issue the warrant of arrest against the petitioner and not otherwise. 5. Ordered accordingly. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for compliance.Order Passed as Above. *******