Manish Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and another Cr. MP No. 4039 of 2024 in Cr. MMO No. 218 of 2018 Reserved on: 28.2.2025 07.03.2025 Present: Mr. Y.K. Thakur, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate, for non-applicant/ respondent No.1 /State. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate, for non-applicant/respondent No.2 The present application has been -led for placing the additional documents on record. It has been asserted that a need has been felt to place the relevant documents on record. The documents are crucial for the adjudication of the dispute. Hence the application. 2. The non-applicant/respondent No.1 -led reply praying that the appropriate orders be passed. 3. A separate reply was -led by non- applicant/respondent No.2 asserting that the documents sought to be placed on record are neither relevant nor necessary for adjudication of the controversy raised in the petition. The applicant/petitioner is trying to delay the matter on one pretext or the other. The application is vague, cryptic and uncertain. The relevance of the documents has not been established. The application is a sheer abuse of the process of law to delay further proceedings. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 4. I have heard Mr Y.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for non-applicant/respondent No.1-State and Mr Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Pranjal Munjal, Advocate, for non- applicant/ respondent No.2. 5. Mr. Y.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submitted that the applicant/ petitioner intends to place on record the documents which are necessary for the adjudication of the dispute pending before the Court. The Court can take the documents on record while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the documents be taken on record. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Akram Siddiqui Vs. State of Bihar and another, Cr. Appeal No. 254 of 2015, decided on 03.10.2018 and Mukesh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, SLP (Crl.) No. 12354 of 2024, decided on 21.11.2024 in support of his submission. 6. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for non-applicant/respondent No.2 submitted that the relevance of the documents is not established. The Court cannot look into the documents while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar Vs. State of H.P. 2024 Crl.LJ 1228 in support of his submission. 7. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the non-applicant/ respondent No.1-State submitted that the applicant/petitioner has relied upon the photocopies of the documents whose authenticity has not been established. Hence, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. There is a force in the submissions of Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for non-applicant/respondent No.2 that the relevance of the documents has not been mentioned in the application. The application is highly vague. It only mentions that a need has been felt to place the documents on record and that the documents are relevant to adjudicate the dispute pending before the Court. However, the application does not mention how the documents are relevant for the adjudication of the fact whether the FIR is to be quashed or not. The FIR was registered on 14.9.2013 and the documents came into existence in the year 2016 and onwards. The relevance of the documents which came into existence after the registration of the FIR has not been established and prima facie it is doubtful that a subsequent event can be considered to determine whether the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable o=ence or it was lodged with some ulterior motive. Hence the submission that the documents cannot be taken on record because their relevance has not been established is accepted as correct. 10. The applicant has relied upon the photocopies of the documents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Mohammad Akram Siddiqui (supra) that the Court can rely upon public documents or the documents, whose veracity is not disputed by the complainant. In the present case, the complainant has not admitted the veracity of the documents. The documents are not even public documents and are merely photocopies. Hence, the documents cannot be taken on record on this ground as well. 11. Consequently, the present application cannot be allowed and the same is dismissed. 12. The observation made hereinabove shall remain con-ned to the disposal of the application and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. 13. List the matter for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 7th March, 2025 (Chander)