SURESHWAR THAKUR, J

1. The petitioners becoming disturbed from theirs becoming repeatedly summoned by the DSP, Police Station C-Division, Amritsar (corespondent No. 7 herein). Therefore, they institute the instant petition, before this Court, qua the making of a direction, upon, the official respondents, against theirs not unnecessarily summoning them, at the police station concerned, or, in the office concerned.

2. However, if the petitioners are accused in respect of any complaint, enquiry whereons is underway, before the police authorities concerned, thereupon, the latter have the completest lawful authority to ensure the participations of the present petitioners in the enquiries, which are engaging their attention.

3. In the above regard, the learned State Counsel, intimates this Court, that the petitioners have entered into an agreement of sale with corespondent No. 9, with respect to their land, measuring 120 kanals, but on an enquiry being made on a complaint of the aggrieved, it emerged, that he had a valid alienable title qua only 60 kanals of land, and that he had no valid alienable title qua the further 60 kanals, as, became agreed to be sold by the present petitioners, to co-respondent No. 9. If so, in the pre-FIR registration enquiries, as may have been embarked, upon, by the police authorities concerned, the latter could serve summons, upon, the petitioners, to ensure that they cause theirs appearance(s), before them, for theirs making theirs participations in the pre-FIR registration enquiries, as, became launched on the complaint, made by the aggrieved – co-respondent No. 9.

4. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that since has a valid alienable title yet in respect of 60 kanals of land, and, also that the earnest money, as became received by the petitioners from co-respondent No. 9, incontemporaneity to the execution amongst them of a contract of sale, is not the fullest complement of the agreed sale consideration, in respect of 60 kanals of land, and, also when he further states, before this Court, that the petitioners are ready and willing to execute, before the Sub-Registrar concerned, a registered deed of conveyance in respect of the petition land, with respondent No. 9.

5. Therefore, the police officer concerned, may bear in mind the above factum, and, may after summoning co-respondent No. 9, before him, may intimate to it / them, about the above made statement before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and, thereafter, may if a compromise occurs, inter se, the petitioners, and, the aggrieved, to drop proceedings, as, have become recoursed by him.

6. In case, co-respondent No. 9 is unwilling to accept the submission made before this Court, on behalf of the petitioners, thereupon, the petitioners shall refund the amount of earnest money, as, became received by them, from co-respondent No. 9, incontemporaneity to the drawings of the agreement to sell amongst them. In sequel, the launched enquiry may be, in accordance with law, considered in to be dropped.

7. Disposed of.