Munish Sharma Vs. State of HP and anr. Cr. MP No. 4030 of 2025 in Cr.MMO No.218 of 2018 Reserved on: 25.2.2026 20.3.2026 Present: Mr Y.K. Thakur, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for non-applicant/respondent No.1- State. Mr Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for non-applicant/respondent No.1. Cr. MP No. 4030 of 2025 The applicant/petitioner has filed the present application for placing on record the statement of the informant and supplementary charge sheet in FIR No. 193 of 2016, dated 2.12.2016. 2. It has been asserted that the informant made the allegations of stalking and harassment against the applicant/petitioner. These allegations were found to be incorrect and cancellation report was submitted. The informant made a statement in favour of the applicant/petitioner during the investigation of FIR No.193 of 2016, dated 2.12.2016, registered at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120- B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This statement contradicted her earlier complaint and supported the applicant’s/petitioner’s version. She admitted that she had appeared for examination, and her leave was duly sanctioned by the petitioner. The production of these documents is essential. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the documents be taken on record. 3. The application is opposed by respondent No.2/informant by filing a reply asserting that the application has been filed without any justification. The informant was shown to be one of the accused in FIR No.193 of 2016, and the matter is pending before the concerned Magistrate. These documents have no relevance to the present application. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 4. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the application was filed. 5. I have heard Mr Y.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State and Mr Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Janesh Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2/informant. 6. Mr Y.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, submitted that the documents are relevant to prove that the applicant/petitioner had sanctioned the leave in her favour, which falsifies the complaint filed by her. The production of the documents would help in the adjudication of the dispute pending before the Court. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the documents be taken on record. 7. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No. 1, State, submitted that the FIR against the informant was lodged subsequently. The informant’s statement has no concern with the dispute pending before the Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 8. Mr Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that the relevance of the documents has not been established. The statement does not falsify the informant’s stand; rather, it corroborates it. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. The main petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 124 of 2013 lodged by the informant regarding her harassment. She stated that she had applied for casual leave, but her casual leave was cancelled many times. When she made inquiries, the applicant/petitioner told her to visit his home. She declined, and the applicant/petitioner started tampering with her attendance. He threatened to spoil the informant’s confidential record. The informant applied for a loan, and the accused told her to stay with him for 1-2 days, and he would provide the loan to her. He told the informant on 13.9.2013 to maintain physical relations with him. When she protested, the applicant/petitioner threatened to kill her. She reported the matter to the police, and the police registered the FIR. 11. The applicant/petitioner is seeking to produce the statement made by the informant before the police in which she had stated that she appeared in the 10+2 examination after taking a No Objection Certificate from the Department. She had submitted all the documents. The applicant/petitioner had sexually harassed her, and she had made a complaint to the police. She obtained the leave from the applicant/petitioner, and the leave was sanctioned. The permission was obtained from the Chief Medical Officer. 12. There is no contradiction between the two FIRs. The informant never stated in FIR No.124 of 2013 that her casual leaves were refused; rather, she had stated that some of the casual leaves were refused. Thus, the sanction of the casual leave for attending the examination will not falsify the FIR lodged by the informant. 13. Even otherwise, it is clearly well settled that the Court exercising the inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR does not conduct a roving inquiry or the mini trial1. It cannot compare the statements and record a finding that one of the statements is false2. Therefore, placing the documents on record will be an exercise in futility. Moreover, the competent Court is seized of the matter, and any finding recorded by this Court would prejudice the trial pending against the informant. Therefore, the documents cannot be taken on record. 14. Hence, the present application fails, and it is dismissed. 1 Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643 2 Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355 15. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the application and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. Cr. MMO No. 218 of 2018 List the matter for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 20th March, 2026 (Chander)