M.M.S. Bedi, J.:-The extent of powers and scope of authority under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of a Magistrate after recording preliminary evidence but before issuing process to the accused directing the police to investigate and submit a report, is required to be determined in the present case.

2. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 20.11.2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, which reads as follows:-

“ Consideration is heard today. This Court is of the opinion that before arriving on any conclusion, that whether the accused are to be summoned or not to be summoned, in the present case, the inquiry is required to be conducted, as such, the present complaint in original is forwarded to SHO,P.S. Divn.No.5 Ludhiana, for conducting inquiry in the present complaint, on the facts complainant alleges. The Ahlmad will retain the photostat copy of the file and will keep the original statement with him and send the photostat to the police of P.S. Divn.No.5, Ludhiana. SHO shall summon the complainant and his witnesses and record their statements and then conduct an inquiry and give his report on or before 19.2.2008.”

3. Pursuant to the above said order, SHO, S.I. Jarnail Singh, P.S Division No.5, Ludhiana, as per the reply filed on behalf of the State, called both the parties on 24.12.2007 for inquiry but since this Court had vide order dated 21.12.2007stayed the operation of the order, he had sent the complaint back to the Magistrate, as is apparent from Annexure R-2/T.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate had contended that the Magistrate after having taken cognizance of the offence by recording the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses, CW 1 to CW4, ought to have, on the basis of the appreciation of the preliminary evidence, issued summons to the respondents as the petitioner had been able to prima facie establish the offence alleged against respondents 2 to 4. The impugned order, referring the matter to the concerned SHO for conducting an inquiry tantamounts to an abuse of the process of the Court, which would result in manifest injustice to the petitioner as the inquiry , which was initiated by the police was contrary to all cannons of criminal justice as the accused party, which does not have any locus standi stood summoned prejudicing the rights of the complainant. The order of the trial Court is without jurisdiction and is thus liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, appearance was put in by respondents 2 to 4 and a serious objection was raised by filing a reply contending that the petitioner has indulged in a blatant misrepresentation of facts and on the misconstruction of the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. Referring to the provisions of Sections 200 to 202 Cr.P.C., it was argued that the Magistrate has acted perfectly in consonance with the provisions of Section 202(1)(b) Cr.P.C. as the Magistrate, after examining the complainant and his witnesses had found that it was necessary to further probe into the matter, therefore, a direction of investigation by police was an appropriate step in the interest of justice.

6. Although this petition does not involve the determination of question whether the private respondents are required to be summoned on the basis of the averments in the complaint and preliminary evidence produced but since the Magistrate vide impugned order dated20.11.2007 (Annexure P-7) has expressed an opinion that an inquiry is required to be conducted for forming an opinion before arriving at a conclusion whether accused are to be summoned or not to be summoned on the facts, as alleged by the complainant, a brief cercory reference will have to be made to the allegations in complaint for proper appreciation of the impugned order, as reasons for subjective or objective satisfaction are not mentioned in the impugned order. Even the scope