IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-30743 of 2009 Date of decision : 26.11.2009 V.P.Chopra ....Petitioner Versus Tarunjit Singh ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. H.S.Bath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for respondent S. D. ANAND, J. The impugned order is a cryptic on the very face of it. It does not, at all, notice the allegations levelled by the respondent-complainant nor does it at all refer to the evidence supportive thereof. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law that a Court must notice reasons in support of a process which affects the liberty of an individual. It is not to suggest to that the Court is obliged to record a detailed discussion in support of order of summoning of an accused but, at the same time, the Court must notice the allegations and relatable preliminary evidence in support thereof. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent-complainant, through his learned counsel, is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 7.12.2009. The learned Trial Magistrate may proceed to rehear the respondent- complainant and grant an order afresh in accordance with law. November 26, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE