1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. At the commencement of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners without arguing on merits of the case, submits that in this matter earlier FIR was filed in which after investigation final report was given by the Police, thereafter, protest petition was filed, upon which, learned trial Court took cognizance and issued warrant of arrest against the petitioners.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that admittedly in this case, no case was found against the petitioners in the investigation made by the police, therefore, final negative report was given but on the basis of protest petition and statement recorded by the trial Court, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners. In this view of the matter for securing the presence of accused, summons were required to be issued but learned trial Court has issued warrant of arrest against the petitioners, therefore, the order of cognizance dated 03.07.2010 may be modified and instead of warrant of arrest, the trial Court may be directed to secure the presence of the petitioners while issuing bailable warrant and petitioners will appear before the tri