1. - In this revision petition filed by the petitioners under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C., the petitioners are challenging order dated 16.05.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Deedwana (District Nagaur) in Sessions Case No.2/2011, whereby, the trial Court allowed application filed under Section 319, Cr.P.C. and took cognizance of offences under Sections 363, 366 (i) and 376(2)(g), I.P.C. against the petitioners and summoned the petitioners through warrant of arrest.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that initially written FIR was filed by the complainant, in which, allegation of rape was made against Daularam s/o Rameshwar and Manoj Dabra. Thereafter, in the statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. the complainant made allegations of rape against Daula Ram and Manoj Dabra only but, in the statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. on 13.11.2010, the prosecutrix made allegation against the petitioners also along with Daula Ram and Manoj Dabra. The police after investigation filed challan against only 2 persons viz., Daula Ram and Manoj Dabra and, after filing challan, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Merta and, ultimately transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Deedwana for trial where the trial is going on.

3. During trial, statement of prosecutrix was recorded as P.W.-1 and statement of Arjun Ram as P.W.-2. Thereafter, an application was filed under Section 319, Cr.P.C. by the Public Prosecutor, upon which, learned trial Court took cognizance and issued warrant of arrest for securing the presence of the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that totally concocted story was framed by the prosecutrix because there was enmity going on in between the families of prosecutrix and petitioners but, in the investigation, it is found that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., therefore, no challan was filed and, in the Court also, the prosecutrix improved her statement from the first information report and statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Hence, the order of taking cognizance may be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that trial Court has committed an error while issuing arrest warrant against the petitioners for securing presence after allowing application filed under Section 319, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 251 , in which, it is held that Court should try to maintain proper balance between individual liberty and the interest of the public and the State while issuing nonbailable warrant.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.423/2011, decided on 04.05.2011, while following the judgment of the apex Court in Inder Mohan Goswami's case (supra) passed order whereby nonbailable warrants issued against the petitioners (therein) were converted into bailable warrants. It is therefore prayed by learned counsel for the petitioners that in this case also even if this Court comes to the conclusion that there is evidence for taking cognizance under Section 319, Cr.P.C., then, the presence of the accused may be ordered to be secured by way of bailable warrants instead of arrest warrants. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his prayer, placed reliance upon judgment of this Court reported in 2008 WLC 517, Babu Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Another and, another judgment reported in 2011 (3) WLC 65, Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Another , in which, it is held that Court must ascertain identity of the person before putting him to trial and process must be issued on sifting evidence and not on ipse dixit that few witnesses have stated against him; and, while deciding the said case, the C