The main legal point established in the judgment is that the release of material evidence, such as a cheque, should be considered in light of the completion of investigation and commencement of trial in a criminal complaint case.

JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J. - Prayer in present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside the order dated 4.10.2016, Annexure P-2, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh in Criminal Complaint No.3298 of 2015, titled as 'Rajat Gupta vs. Tanvi Garg and another' and order dated 10.5.2017, Annexure P-3, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.

2. Facts in brief necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint alleging therein that a blank signed cheque No.152923 of UCO Bank of his daughter, was stolen by the respondent, who presented the same in the Bank after filling in his own name as the payee alongwith other particulars. On the basis whereof, FIR No.375 dated 31.7.2015, under Section 380 IPC was registered at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh against him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Courts below have wrongly dismissed the application filed by the Public Prosecutor, UT, Chandigarh, for providing the original cheque lying in the file of criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending before the JMIC, Chandigarh, which was required for comparing with specimen handwriting of the respondent, inasmuch as the allegations levelled in the FIR were that the same was stolen by him. It is his further submission that the investigation of the case is still going on and the same cannot be completed in absence thereof.

4. Learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the investigation in the matter has already been completed and four PWs have been examined, which has been duly noticed by the Courts below and accordingly, the application has been rightly dismissed. Thus, he prays for the dismissal of the present petition.

Heard.

5. It is apposite to refer to the order dated 4.10.2016, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh, the relevant of which reads thus:-

'Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the case file thoroughly and very carefully, it is observed that by way of present application applicant sought release of original cheque bearing no.152923 on the ground that handwriting as mentioned in the cheque in question is to be compared with specimen handwriting of accused in case F.I.R. bearing No.375, dated 31.07.2015. Admittedly, in case

F.I.R. bearing No.375, dated 31.07.2015, registered under Section 380 I.P.C., P.S. Sector-34, Chandigarh, investigation has already been completed and challan has also been presented before the Court on 08.10.2015 to put the accused on trial. Applicant has failed to produce on record any document to show that investigation is still pending in the said case pertaining to F.I.R. bearing No.375, dated 31.07.2015. Further, trial has also been commenced in said case and four prosecution witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, therefore, it cannot be said that investigation in the said case is still pending. The present case titled as Rajat Gupta versus Tanvi Garg is criminal complaint filed by complainant under Section 138 of N.I. Act on the basis of dishonour of cheque bearing No.152923. As such, cheque in question bearing No.152923 is a material evidence to decide the present case. Therefore, no ground is made out to release the cheque in question in favour of applicant."

6. Likewise, the operative part of the order dated 10.5.2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner, reads thus:

'7. The brief point that is involved is that revisionist has sought the release of original cheque bearing no. 152923 dated 2.6.2015 on the pretext that the same is required for obtaining specimen handwriting in FIR No. 375 dated 31.7.2015. The learned trial Court has dismissed the application stating that the investigation has been completed in the other matter and the trial has been commenced. Resultantly, it cannot be said that the invest