K. N. OJHA, J. Instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 23-11-2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, in Case No. 396/11 of 2001 (State v. Nathoo Lal) by which non-bailable warrant has been issued against the revisionists Amar Pal and Pappu, sons of Shyam Lal, Maya Devi widow of Shyam Lal, Kamla Devi wife of Veer Pal, Sobaran son of Rewati, Sukhpal Singh son of Sobran Singh, Munni Devi wife of Sukhpal Singh, and Satendra Singh son of Sobran Singh for being arrested and produced before the Court so that they may face trial in a case under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 120-B I. P. C. 2. Heard Sri Anees Ahmad, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shekhar Yadav and Sri N. K. Dwivedi, learned AGA and have gone through the impugned order and the papers filed alongwith the revision. 3. The complainant Natthu Lal moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. against the revisionists. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed for investigation in the case. Investigation was done and final report was submitted, on which notice was issued to the complainant. After hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and of witnesses Subedar and Purushottam under Section 202 Cr. P. C. , perused the case diary and took cognizance of the offence and issued non-bailable warrant against the revisionist. Aggrieved there from instant revision has been preferred. 4. Section 204 of Cr. P. C. contemplates that if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be a warrant case, he may issue a warrant, or if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate of if he has no jurisdiction himself some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. 5. The learned Counsel for the revisionists submits that in this case summons could be issued against the revisionists but non- bailable warrant was directly issued and thus the impugned orders is in violation of Section 204 (b) of Cr. P. C. Reliance has been also placed on Section 87 of Cr. P. C. , which contemplates that: "87. 5. The learned Counsel for the revisionists submits that in this case summons could be issued against the revisionists but non- bailable warrant was directly issued and thus the impugned orders is in violation of Section 204 (b) of Cr. P. C. Reliance has been also placed on Section 87 of Cr. P. C. , which contemplates that: "87. Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons.-A Court may, in any case in which it is empowered by this Code to issue a summons for the appearance of any person, issue, after recording its reasons in writing, a warrant for his arrest - (a) if, either before the issue of such summons, or after the issue of the same but before the time fixed for his appearance, the Court sees reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons; or (b) if at such time he fails to appear and the summons is proved to have been duly served in time to admit of his appearing in accordance therewith and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure. " 6. Thus, a perusal of Sections 87 and 204 Cr. P. C. shows that if in a case summons can be issued normally, it should be issued, but if Court sees reason to believe that issue of summons will ordinarily be not complied with or appearance of the accused before the Court will be avoided and there are reasons for this, warrant may be issued. 7. In instant case FIR was not registered at the police station. A complaint was moved under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. After investigation final report was submitted. The learned Magistrate perused the case diary and did not find sufficient evidence in the case diary for taking cognizance against the accused revisionists. Therefore, he proceeded with the inquiry, recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. thereafter arrived at the conclusion that prima-facie case is made out against the revisionist and warrant was issued. 8. In this case amongst the revisionists, who have been summoned as accused by issuing non-bailable warrant, are three ladies of the same family and all the eight revisionists are of the same family. In such circumstances during trial it will be ascertained as to how many out of these eight revisionists can be held responsible for the death of the victim. In such circumstances during trial it will be ascertained as to how many out of these eight revisionists can be held responsible for the death of the victim. When these facts are still to be ascertained, when there are three ladies amongst the revisionist of the same family, when the case is proceeding on the basis of complaint registered by the learned Magistrate after making inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. , it was in the interest of justice that summons should have been issued against the revisionists rather than issuing non-bailable warrant directly. 9. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be modified to this extent only. 10. The revisionists are directed to appear in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, and to participate in the proceeding of the case. Their bail applications, if any, be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 11. The revision is finally disposed of at the admission stage. Revision disposed of. .