ORAL ORDER

1. Challenging the legal validity of the impugned notice summoning the petitioners to the police station by Police Inspector, Anand Town Police Station, District Anand for interrogation, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners.

2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Prakash Jani for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Soni for the respondent-

State and learned advocate Mr.Jay Thakkar for the second respondent.

3. Factual matrix of the lis may briefly be stated as follows:-

3.1 A notice dated 23.07.2020, which is impugned in this application, was issued by the Police Inspector, Anand Town Police Station, District Anand to the petitioners herein directing them to attend the police station to interrogate them in connection with Inverd No.1419/2020 dated 11.06.2020 within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said notice stating that if they fail to remain present before the police within 7 days, necessary legal actions would be taken against them.

3.2 The petitioners have received the said notice and endorsed on the said notice stating that a copy of the said complaint may be sent to them and that they would send a reply to it.

3.3 The petitioners did not attend the police station; as summoned in the impugned notice and, they have challenged the legal validity of the said notice by way of filing the said application.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Soni for the respondent-State, on instructions, would submit that a person by name Mr.Nishit Manojkumar Thaker, who is the owner of Pace Internet Services & Charotar Telelink Pvt. Ltd., lodged a report with the Anand Town Police Station, District Anand against the petitioners on 11.06.2020 stating that both the de facto-complainant and the petitioners were in business of providing internet services in Ahmedabad and in connection with the said business that the petitioners did not pay the money due, to the de facto-complainant and also to the Government and they have the intention to cheat the de facto-complainant from the inception. Therefore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that as the transaction pertains to a business activity that to conduct a preliminary inquiry before proceeding with registration of the FIR that the impugned notice was given to the petitioners summoning them for interrogation. Therefore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the impugned notice is perfectly valid and sustainable under law and it is not liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Soni also contends that the notice was issued by the Police Inspector in exercise of his powers under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) and a reading of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. makes it manifest that the registration of the FIR or a crime is not essential or a per-requisite to summon the proposed accused for inquiry or interrogation before registering the case and as the impugned notice was issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the Police Officer under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. that the same is valid under law and it is not liable to be quashed.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Jay Thakkar for the second respondent would also reiterate the same contention and he would contend that as the petitioners have cheated the de facto-complainant in the aforesaid business transaction and that the report was lodged with the police and the police are now conducting a preliminary inquiry before registering the case and the said notice is valid under law.

7. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Prakash Jani for the petitioners would submit that it is not stated in the impugned notice that the said notice was issued under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. or that the Police Inspector in exercise of his powers under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. that the said notice was issued. He then contends that even to issue the said notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., the Police Officer has to