JUDGMENT/ORDER : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 2. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the accused petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 28.9.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh whereby, cognizance was taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and he was summoned through warrant of arrest as well as the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 1), Hanumangarh in revision whereby, the said order was affirmed. 3. Learned counsel Shri Sandhu representing the petitioner urges that the disputed document was never got compared from F.S.L and as such, the trial Court was unjustified in taking cognizance against the petitioner for the above offences. 4. Learned counsel Shri Sharma representing the respondent no.2 submits that cognizance was taken after getting a thorough enquiry conducted through the police and thus, the impugned orders should not be interfered with while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. On a perusal of material available on record and after going through the impugned orders, it is apparent that the order taking cognizance is an ex-parte order. If at all, the petitioner has any grievance that the case of the complainant is based on no evidence whatsoever, he would be at liberty to raise all such objections before the Court below at the stage of framing of charges and the trial Court would be better placed to appreciate such argument on the basis of the material available with it. It may be stated here that the case is in the nature of a warrant case instituted upon a complaint and the trial Court would have to record pre-charge evidence and in that process also, the petitioner can raise all his objections. Thus, the petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the trial Court on or before 31.1.2018 and move a regular bail application whereupon he shall be enlarged on bail. The warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner vide order dated 28.9.2006 shall not be executed till 31.1.2018 After appearance before the trial Court, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all his objections before the trial Court during pre-charge evidence and the stage of consideration of charges. The warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner vide order dated 28.9.2006 shall not be executed till 31.1.2018 After appearance before the trial Court, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all his objections before the trial Court during pre-charge evidence and the stage of consideration of charges. The trial Court shall objectively consider such objections of the accused and deal with the same without being prejudiced by the earlier orders passed in the matter. In case, the complaint fails to satisfy the Court regarding any document being forged, the petitioner will certainly be entitled to be discharged. 6. With these observations and directions, the instant misc. petition is disposed of. 7. Stay petition also stands disposed of.