AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Khem Karan, J.—Heard Sri S.C. Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State and also perused the application and papers annexed to it.
His grievance appears to be that without any adequate and reliable materials, police submitted a chargesheet on the basis of which the learned Magistrate has summoned the applicant to answer the charges punishable under Sections 498B, 489C of I.P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioner says that the alleged forge and fake currency note of denomination of hundred was not tested by an expert before submitting the chargesheet.
In the circumstances, I think that the petitioner can be given liberty to approach before the Court concerned in person or through Counsel and to place his objection against the taking of the cognizance or against the summoning order and if the same is placed before the Court concerned, the Court will decide the same by passing a speaking order. In case, the plea of the petitioner is not accepted by the Court concerned then he may seek proper remedy before appropriate Court. The application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. stands finally disposed of.