1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appln (C482) No. 314 of 2008 Nizamuddin S/O Nanuwa R/O Village Lal Dang Police Station Shyampur District Haridwar ………………………. Applicant Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Constable 767 Dinesh Tomar, Police Station, Shyampur, District Haridwar …………..Opposite parties Shri Vivek Shukla,Advocate present for the petitioner Smt. Mamta Bisht A.G.A with Shri M.A.Khan , Brief Holder present for the State Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2) By means of the this petition, moved Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no 855 of 2007, State vs. Nizamuddin, relating to offences punishable under section 294, 376, 511 I.P.C, Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Haridwar. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner read out the First Information Report dated 2nd of May 2007, which is registered as Crime No. 29 of 2007. Impugned charge sheet has been 2 filed after investigation in said Crime Number. The First Information Report lodged by respondent no.2 does not disclose anything relating to attempt of committing rape by the petitioner. What has been said in the First Information Report by the complainant is that the complainant came to know that the petitioner Nizamuddin is passing obscene remarks against the women. On this he was caught at the spot. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the offences punishable under section 376 & 511 has been added in the charge sheet merely on the ground that during investigation, one of the witnesses told that earlier on some occasion, the petitioner attempted to commit rape against some other woman. Said incident, as apparent from the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigation officer, clearly discloses that it has nothing to do with the Crime No. 29 of 2007. (4) In the counter affidavit prosecution has failed to show how the charge sheet has been filed, in respect of offences punishable under section 376 & 511 I.P.C, in addition to offences punishable under section 294 I.P.C, in Crime No. 29 of 2007. Had it been a case that in the same transaction the accused had committed another offence, it could have been added, even though said offence is not mentioned in the First Information Report. But in respect of an offence which has nothing to do with the Crime No. 29 of 2007, the same could not have been added, in the manner it is done by the investigating officer. 3 (5) For the reasons as discussed above, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is partly allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner shall continue, in respect of offence punishable under section 294 I.P.C, but the proceedings in respect of offences punishable under section 376 & 511 I.P.C, are hereby quashed. Dt.05.05.2010 NP (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)