1 Rajat Bhalla vs. State of H.P. Cr. MMO No. 281 of 2026 Reserved on: 25.06.2026 07.07.2026 Present: Ms Swati Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr Bhairav Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr Surjeet Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Cr. MP No. 2343 of 2026 The applicant/petitioner has filed the present application for placing on record the copy of the Medico Legal Certificate (MLC) of the victim. It has been asserted that the applicant had placed on record a copy of the MLC wherein the name of the victim was inadvertently omitted. The applicant intends to place on record the correct copy of the same document containing the complete particulars of the victim. The applicant is seeking the quashing of the FIR based on a compromise, and the document is relevant for the adjudication of the petition. Hence, the present application. 2 2. No reply to the application was filed. 3. I have heard Ms Swati Sharma, learned vice counsel representing the applicant/petitioner, Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1 and Mr Surjeet Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. 4. Ms Swati Sharma, learned vice counsel representing the applicant, submitted that the applicant had earlier filed an application for placing on record the copy of the MLC; however, the copy was not complete, and when this fact was discovered during the hearing, the application was withdrawn. The principle of res judicata does not apply to criminal cases. The MLC is relevant for determining whether a case for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is made out. Therefore, she prayed that the present application be allowed and the MLC be taken on record. She relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.C.Garg vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 791 in support of her 3 submissions. 5. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1, submitted that the State does not want to file any reply to the application and does not dispute the correctness of the MLC being sought to be produced on record. 6. Surjeet Kumar, learned counsel for respondents Nos 2 and 3, submitted that he has no objection to allowing the application. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. A perusal of the record shows that earlier the applicant had filed an application no. CrMP 1932 of 2026 to place on record a copy of the MLC. This copy was incomplete because the name of the victim was not mentioned in it. The matter was taken up for hearing on 16.06.2026, and the learned counsel withdrew the application after discovering that the victim’s name was not mentioned in it. The defect noticed in the earlier 4 application is being sought to be rectified by filing the present application. Since the earlier application was defective and could not have been allowed because the relevance of the MLC was not apparent on the record. Therefore, the filing of the application and its withdrawal will be inconsequential. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in S.C.Garg (supra) that the principle of res judicata does not apply to criminal cases. However, in the present case, the application was withdrawn, and the principle of res judicata does not apply to the present case1, and the cited judgment does not apply to the facts of the case. 10. The main petition has been filed for quashing the FIR based on a compromise effected between the parties; therefore, the copy of the MLC would be relevant to know the nature and extent of the injuries and further to ascertain whether the invocation of Section 307 of IPC by the police was 1 K. Sivaramaiah v. Rukmani Ammal, (2004) 1 SCC 471 5 justified. Since the document is relevant and its authenticity is not in dispute, the present application is allowed, and the document is permitted to be brought on record. 11. The application stands disposed of. Cr. MMO No. 281 of 2026 List the matter for consideration in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 07th July,2026 (ravinder)