JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindauncity District Karauli in Case No. 438/2008 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners No. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. and against petitioner No. 3 for the offence under Sections 304-B/109 I.P.C. and summoned them through warrant of arrest. 2. Briefly stated the facts for the disposal of the present revision petition are that complainant Pooran Singh filed a complaint in the concerned Court on 6.10.2007 with the averments that his daughter Anita was married to Ajay son of Bharat Singh four years before the filing of the complaint. The in-laws of the daughter Anita used to harass her and were also consistently making demand of dowry and ultimately she died in her in-laws house. On the above complaint, F.I.R. No. 568/2007 was registered under Section 304-B I.P.C. and after investigation filed charge-sheet only against Jasveer Ajay Singh under Section 304-B I.P.C. in the Juvenile Justice Board looking to the age of accused Ajay Singh and left other family members. Since the other persons were left, the complainant filed a complaint and got examined himself as a witness along with Damodar, Jal Singh and Laxmi. The learned trial Court after hearing the complainant and on perusal of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and also taking into consideration the statements recorded during the course of investigation found that prima facie evidence was available on record to try accused Bharat Singh and Ishwar Singh under Section 304-B read with Section 109 I.P.C. and to try accused Jasveer Singh under Sections 304-B r/w 109 I.P.C., therefore, took cognizance against the accused-petitioners under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code and accused were summoned through non-bailable warrant vide order dated 14.8.2008. Hence, this revision petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the instant case as the fact would reveal that the police initially submitted negative report and it is on filing protest petition and complaint, accused petitioners have been summoned through non-bailable warrants. Hence, this revision petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the instant case as the fact would reveal that the police initially submitted negative report and it is on filing protest petition and complaint, accused petitioners have been summoned through non-bailable warrants. It is contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case as regards taking cognizance against the accused-petitioners is concerned, he does not want to challenge the order taking cognizance but instead of summoning the accused-petitioners through non-bailable warrants, they should be summoned through bailable warrants. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance on Sahab Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 RCC 626 and on the decision rendered by this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 434/2003 Kalu and others v. State of Rajasthan decided on 28.5.2003 . 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. I have considered the submission made by the parties and carefully perused the material available on record. 6. It is not necessary to discuss the facts in detail as the order taking cognizance has not been challenged. The only prayer which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that the accused-petitioners may be summoned through bailable warrants instead of non-bailable warrants. 7. In the case of Sahab Singh and others (supra), the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance after filing protest petition and recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It was held that in view of the facts that since police after investigation filed negative report, therefore, it was proper to summon the accused through bailable warrants instead of non-bailable warrants. 8. 8. In the case of Kalu and others (supra), the police after registering F.I.R. and after investigation in a case under Section 304- B I.P.C., filed negative final report and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after conducting inquiry and after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., took cognizance against seven accused persons under Section 304-B I.P.C. It was contended before this Court that the police after investigation found that no case was made out and it is only on filing protest petition cognizance was taken, therefore, the accused were liable to be summoned through bailable warrants. 9. In this case also, the order taking cognizance was not challenged. This Court in the above circumstances, directed the accused to appear before the concerned Magistrate on the first date in compliance of the bailable warrants. 10. In the present case also, it is not disputed before me that the police after investigation submitted negative final report and the learned Magistrate after making inquiry under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure has taken cognizance and summoned the accused through non-bailable warrants, therefore, I am of the opinion that this revision petition is liable to be partly allowed. 11. Consequently, this revision petition with regard to quashing the cognizance order is dismissed but the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindauncity is directed to issue bailable warrants to the accused-petitioners instead of arrest warrants. The accused-petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned Magistrate on the first date in compliance of,ttile bailable warrants. 12. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.Revision petition partly allowed. *******