being induced by him, an amount of Rs. 8 Lakhs was paid by the complainant to petitioner No.1, Surjit Singh, father of petitioner No.2. It is further alleged that despite receiving the aforesaid amount, the accused neither arranged for visa nor refunded the money paid. Despite repeated demands, the accused avoided the complainant and refused to return the money and extended threats of dire consequences. Therefore, the complainant had filed aforesaid complaint against the accused persons and vide order dated 03.08.2019, the learned trial Court called for the report under Section 202 of the Code and based on the preliminary evidence, the petitioners were summoned vide impugned order dated 18.01.2020. 3. Feeling aggrieved from the aforementioned order, the petitioners have filed the present petition. While issuing notice of motion on 31.03.2021, the proceedings before the trial Court were stayed by this Court. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from infirmity and had been passed in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. It is further argued that the petitioners were residing abroad, an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code was directed to be conducted by the concerned SHO and subsequently the report was submitted to the Court on 01.10.2019, wherein it was observed that the transactions alleged have taken place at Kapurthala and not at Pathankot, the same has not been considered at all while passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1997 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 761 to fortify his arguments.
