- (1.) Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, in the wake of complaint of complainant Dalip Kumar Garg, Advocate, respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by means of FIR No.63 dated 28.6.2008, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 417, 419, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.8, Ludhiana.
(2.) During the course of investigation, it was found that the Ludhiana Police did not have the jurisdiction to register and investigate the case. Consequently, on the recommendation of DIG Ludhiana, the final report of cancellation of the case (Annexure P1) was prepared and was submitted in the Court of Area Magistrate. Aggrieved by it, the complainant filed a protest petition (Annexure P2) to the cancellation report.
(3.) The Magistrate rejected the cancellation report submitted by the police and treated the protest petition (Annexure P2) as a complaint and straightway jumped to summon the petitioners as accused without recording any preliminary evidence, by way of impugned summoning order dated 14.3.2011 (Annexure P3).;