ORDER : Mr. Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. D. S. Ahluwalia with Mr. G. S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. Heard on the question of admission. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners inter-alia have assailed the validity of the notice dated 7-1-2015 issued under section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by which the petitioners have been called to appear before him within three days failing which the matter shall be decided on merits. 3. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated that the petitioners are the partners of the firm namely M/s Air Perfection. The said firm is a small scale industry engaged in the business of assembling and repair of air conditioning, civil work and cooling plant etc. The respondent No. 3 is a company registered under the Companies Act. The respondent No. 3 was awarded the work of design, construction and commissioning of orange multi-commodity pack house of 500 M.T. cold storage with ancillary unit at Sausar, Distt. Chhindwara by National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the Federation'). The total value of the contract was Rs. 468 Lakhs out of which civil work to the tune of Rs. 196.22 Lakhs was sub-let to M/s Air Perfection and an agreement was executed on 14-2-2008. The petitioners successfully completed the civil work and a completion certificate was issued by the Federation on 23-12-2011. It is the case of the petitioners that the amount due to them under the contract was withheld, therefore, the petitioners approached the Facilitation Council at Bhopal constituted under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Act, 2006. The Award dated 11-9-2014 was passed in favour of the petitioners directing the respondent No. 3 to make payment of a sum of Rs. 2,57,78,631/-. 4. The respondent No. 3 challenged the aforesaid Award in a Writ Petition namely W.P. No. 19319/14. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid writ petition has been allowed and the Award passed in favour of the petitioners by the Facilitation Council has been set aside. 2,57,78,631/-. 4. The respondent No. 3 challenged the aforesaid Award in a Writ Petition namely W.P. No. 19319/14. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid writ petition has been allowed and the Award passed in favour of the petitioners by the Facilitation Council has been set aside. The petitioners received a notice dated 7-1-2015 issued under section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') from the office of Station House Officer, Police Station Barakhamba, New Delhi, by which the petitioners were asked to appear within three days from the date of receipt of the notice. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned notice is nothing but a gross misuse of the process of law and has been issued at the instance of respondent No. 3 with a mala fide intention. It was further submitted that the Police Station at New Delhi has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint made by respondent No. 3 and the notice has been issued with a pre-determined motive. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that pursuant to the impugned notice, the petitioner No. 2 had visited New Delhi in the month of May, 2015 and had tried to contact the Sub-Inspector, who had issued the notice to petitioner No. 2, but the petitioner No. 2 was informed that the said Sub-Inspector who had issued the notice, has been transferred and in his place, another officer has joined, who is not aware about the complaint. It is further submitted that on 7-7-2015, the petitioner No. 1 had met Mr. Praveen Kumar, Sub-Inspector and requested him to supply copy of the complaint so that the statement of petitioner No. 1 could be recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also invited the attention of this Court to application for amendment namely I.A. No. 7919/15 and an application namely I.A. No. 7921/15 for seeking appropriate direction to respondent No. 3 to produce the documents. It is pointed out by the proposed amendment, the petitioners seek to incorporate the plea that the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the proceeding under the criminal law if any, cannot be set at motion at New Delhi. It is pointed out by the proposed amendment, the petitioners seek to incorporate the plea that the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the proceeding under the criminal law if any, cannot be set at motion at New Delhi. It is further submitted that the petitioners want to incorporate the relief in the alternative that proposed respondents No. 4 and 5 be directed to transfer the investigation/enquiry from the Police authorities of Delhi to Police authorities of Madhya Pradesh. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2000) 7 SCC 640 . 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable at pre-FIR stage merely to quash the information submitted to the Police. It is further submitted that the writ petition is pre-mature and in case in the opinion of respondent No. 2 if the complaint submitted by respondent No. 3 discloses commission of cognizable offence, the respondent No. 2 is under an obligation to register the First Information Report. It is also pointed out that during the pre-FIR stage, there is no reasonable apprehension of arrest of the petitioners and this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the statutory right of respondent No. 3 under section 154 of the Code to furnish information to the Police with regard to commission of cognizable offence. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has disputed the submission of the petitioners that either petitioner No. 1 or petitioner No. 2 had appeared pursuant to the notice which has been impugned in the instant writ petition. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has disputed the submission of the petitioners that either petitioner No. 1 or petitioner No. 2 had appeared pursuant to the notice which has been impugned in the instant writ petition. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Section 154(1) of the Code provides that if an information relating to commission of cognizable offence is given orally to an office in-charge of the Police Station, the same shall be reduced in writing by him or in his direction and be read over to the informant and every such information whether given in writing or reduced in writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it and substance shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. Section 41-A of the Code which has been incorporated by amendment Act no.5 of 2009 w.e.f. 1-11-2011 reads as under :- "41-A. (1) The police officer may, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice. (2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice. (3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. (4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice, it shall be lawful for the police officer to arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice, subject to such orders as my have been passed in this behalf by a competent Court." 8. (4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice, it shall be lawful for the police officer to arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice, subject to such orders as my have been passed in this behalf by a competent Court." 8. From perusal of section 41-A it is evident that in case person complies with the notice issued to him and appears before Police officer, he shall not be arrested except for reasons to be recorded in writing as to why arrest of such person is necessary. 9. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while interpreting with the provisions of section 154 of the Code in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 , has held that the Investigating Officer is under an obligation to register the First Information Report if the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Para 120.6 of the judgment in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) is reproduced below for the facility of reference :- "120.6- As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under - (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry". 10. The dispute between the parties falls under the exception carved out by the Supreme Court, which requires a preliminary enquiry to be held. The respondent No. 2 on a complaint being made by respondent No. 3, has issued notice under section 41-A of the Code to the petitioners asking them to appear before him. Thus, before registration of the F.I.R. taking into account the nature of dispute between the parties, a preliminary enquiry is to be held by respondent No. 2, as laid down in para 120.6 of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra). 11. Thus, before registration of the F.I.R. taking into account the nature of dispute between the parties, a preliminary enquiry is to be held by respondent No. 2, as laid down in para 120.6 of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra). 11. In view of the assertions made by petitioners that petitioner No. 2 had appeared before the Sub-Inspector of Police Station Barakhamba, New Delhi, in the month of May, 2015, which has been vehemently denied by respondent No. 3, I deem it appropriate to direct that in case petitioners furnish an information to S.H.O. Police Station Barakhamba, New Delhi, that they would appear before him on 10th August, 2015 at 11.00 a.m. along with a copy of this order, the Station House Officer shall record the statements of the petitioners in light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in para 120.6 of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) and shall bear in mind the mandate contained in section 41-A of the Code. Till appearance of the petitioners before the Station House Officer, Police Station Barakhamba, New Delhi, no coercive action shall be taken against them. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 12. Since the petition itself is being disposed of, therefore, no orders are required to be passed on I.A. No. 7919/15 and I.A. No. 7921/15. Accordingly, the aforesaid I.As. are disposed of. 13. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.