JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Vide this order, the above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as the same order is under challenge in both these petitions. 2. Complainant Lakhvir Singh has filed a complaint against the petitioners under Sections 380/392/504/506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short). The complainant had taken two shops on rent from Cooperative Society, Dhilwan. Some departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioners. Petitioner Tarsem Singh started demanding Rs.15,000/- towards arrears of rent of the shops from the complainant. On 01.06.2008, he broke the locks of shops and mis-appropriated the costly items and instruments lying in the shops. 3. Admittedly, the matter was sent to Police Station, Sadar Kotkapura for inquiry by the Magistrate. Report was submitted by Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Kotkapura dated 10.08.2009 stating therein that no case of theft of material by the petitioners was made out. It was further stated that the complaintant had made false complaints against the petitioners. 4. The trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 08.03.2010 whereby the petitioners have been ordered to be summoned to face the trial under Sections 382 and 392 IPC. 5. Hence the present petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial Court has passed the impugned summoning order without referring to the inquiry report submitted by the police and hence the summoning order was liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has opposed the petition and has stated that the trial Court has passed the summoning order after examining all the factual aspects. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petitions deserve to be allowed. 9. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court has not referred to the inquiry report dated 10.08.2009 submitted by Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Kotkapura while passing the summoning order. Since the trial Court had sought an inquiry from the police and the police after inquiry had submitted the inquiry report, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to have referred to the said inquiry report before coming to the conclusion as to whether the petitioners were required to be summoned to face the trial or not. Since the trial Court had sought an inquiry from the police and the police after inquiry had submitted the inquiry report, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to have referred to the said inquiry report before coming to the conclusion as to whether the petitioners were required to be summoned to face the trial or not. Thus, the impugned order suffers from patent error and is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 08.03.2010 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the inquiry report submitted by the police dated 10.08.2009. ---------0.B.S.0------------