4.From the statement of reply to the summons served on the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner had appeared before the respondent police which is not disputed. He also sent a representation on 12.05.2021 which was received by the respondents on 13.05.2021. From the statement and materials, it is seen that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are business partners. There seems to be dispute between them. The respondent police are on receipt of the complaint and had only conducted enquiry and the enquiry is in process. At this juncture, this petition has been filed before this Court and the only apprehension of the petitioner is that he is being harassed by the respondent police. It is seen that nowhere in the statement there is a mention of harassment except placing reliance upon the Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353 case and also Article 23 of the constitution of India. The petitioner admits the business relationship, to conclude the enquiry, the respondent police needs to take the statement and also the documents if any produced by the petitioner. In view of the same, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police on 23.06.2021 and 24.06.2021 and produce whatever documents available with him and thereafter, the respondent police shall complete the enquiry, as contemplated.
