JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 1.3.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi (Jodhpur) in Criminal Complaint Case No. 201/2012, whereby, the learned Magistrate upon the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 376/511 I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case, the allegations of the complainant are exaggerated and unsubstantiated by any evidence. He submits that for preventing a fair enquiry in the matter, the F.I.R. was not filed and instead, the complainant filed a complaint in support whereof, manipulated statements have been deposed before the trial Court. Learned Counsel thus submits that the order taking cognizance against the petitioners is absolutely illegal and amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel further submits that the direction to summon the petitioners through warrants of arrest passed by the learned Magistrate is absolutely unjustified and the petitioners should have been directed to be summoned through bailable warrants in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indra Mohan Goswami & Ors. v. Govt. of Uttaranchal & Ors., reported in 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 574 . 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. However, the counsel for the complainant does not opposed the submission regarding conversion of warrants of arrest into bailable warrants. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 5. In the opinion of this Court, the order taking cognizance against the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or amounting to be an abuse of the process of the Court. However, in view of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indra Mohan Goswami (supra), the prayer made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to summoning the petitioners through bailable warrants is reasonable. 6. Accordingly, the order impugned to the extent, whereby, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners is upheld. The petitioners are given liberty to raise all the objections/arguments before the trial Court at the stage of framing of charges. 7. 6. Accordingly, the order impugned to the extent, whereby, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners is upheld. The petitioners are given liberty to raise all the objections/arguments before the trial Court at the stage of framing of charges. 7. However, the order, whereby, the petitioners have been summoned through warrants of arrest is hereby set aside. It is directed that now the petitioners shall be summoned by issuing bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- The petitioners may appear before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today and furnish their bail bonds in accordance with the terms of the bailable warrants issued, failing which, the order converting the warrants of arrest into bailable warrants shall stand restored. 8. Consequently, this misc. petition as well as the stay petition stand disposed of as directed above.Petition disposed of. *******