JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali (for short, "the revisional court") in Criminal Revision Petition No.11/2012, whereby, the revisional court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners and maintained the order dated 2.4.2012 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali (for short, "the trial court") in Criminal Case No.103/2012. The trial court vide order dated 2.4.2012 took cognizance against the petitioner No.1-Chunni Lal for offence under Sections 363, 366-A and against the petitioner No.2-Roopa Ram for offence under Sections 376, 366, 344 of the I.P.C. and summoned them through non-bailable warrant. 2. The prosecutrix was examined before the Judicial Magistrate. Her statement was recorded. In her statement on 13.2.2010, it was stated by her that she went to Mumbai out of her own free will and that she did not run away with anybody. On the basis of the investigation, her statement recorded under Section 161 as well as statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer filed the cancellation report before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bail District Pali. However, the complainant-Khim Singh, who is the father of the prosecutrix, filed a protest petition. On the basis of protest petition, the statement of the prosecutrix was once again recorded, in which, she levelled allegations against the petitioners for the offence mentioned above. The said statement is stated to have been recorded after 1 year and 2 months. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that perusal of the said statement shows that if at all, it is a case of consent. 3. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., reported in 2008(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 34 to substantiate the argument that if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in court, the summon or bailable warrants should be preferred. 4. Issue notice. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State. 6. It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner was found innocent during investigation and cancellation report was submitted. However, the petitioners were summoned subsequently on the basis of the protest petition filed by the father of the prosecutrix. 4. Issue notice. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State. 6. It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner was found innocent during investigation and cancellation report was submitted. However, the petitioners were summoned subsequently on the basis of the protest petition filed by the father of the prosecutrix. While summoning the petitioners, non-bailable warrant has been issued. 7. Without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present petition with a direction that in case petitioners put in appearance before the trial court on or before 07.01.2013 and file application for regular bail, they shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the trial court on such conditions as may be imposed by the trial court.The criminal misc. petition stands disposed of in the above terms.Petition disposed of. *******