R. C. DEEPAK, J. The present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the applicants Jamshed S/o Ali Asgar and Smt. Gulshan Jahan d/o Sri Umardeen w/o Jamshed r/o Mawi Khurd, Police Station Balaini, District Baghpat with a prayer that the charge-sheet dated 31-12-1999 (Annexure-5) and the entire proceedings arising from the First Information Report in the case Crime No. 128 of 1999 under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Balaini, District Baghpat may be quashed. 2. The abovenamed applicants have filed a copy of Nikahnama dated 19-9-1999, copy of First Information Report dated 20-9- 1999, copy of certificate regarding the age of the applicant No. 2 issued by Dr. Punit Kumar, copy of order dated 5-10-1999 passed by this Honble Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 6080 of 1999, copy of the charge-sheet dated 31-12-1999, statement of Gulshan Jahan under Section 200 Cr. P. C. , copy of the order dated 27-4-2000 of this Court, copy of the medical report of Chief Medical Officer, Baghpat regarding the age of Gulshan Jahan and a copy of order dated 31-7-1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat marked as Annexures 1 to 9 respectively. 3. A perusal of the First Information Report (Annexure-2) shows that on 20-9-1999 the Opposite Party No. 2 herein Umardeen lodged a written report with the Police Station Balaini, District Baghpat to the effect that on 19-9-1999 he had gone to Khekhara returned back on 20-9-1999 and found that his minor daughter Gulshan Jahan aged about 14 years was missing from his house. Whereupon an inquiry regarding her disappearance was made. During the course of the inquiry Ram Naresh and Rohtas residents of his (Umardeen) own village told him that they had seen his daughter Gulshan Jahan she was going on a motor cycle with Jamshed (Applicant No. 1 ). He has further mentioned therein that under persuasion Jamshed has kidnapped his daughter. 4. The Investigating Officer investigated into the matter and submitted its report dated 31-12-1999 under Section 173 Cr. PC. as referred to above. 5. The opposite Party No. 2 filed counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit as well supplementary rejoinder affidavit have been filed by the applications, are on record. 6. I have heard Sri Manoj Mishra, Sri N. I. Jafri, learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajiv Sharma, Sri R. R. Pandey, learned Counsel for the Opp. PC. as referred to above. 5. The opposite Party No. 2 filed counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit as well supplementary rejoinder affidavit have been filed by the applications, are on record. 6. I have heard Sri Manoj Mishra, Sri N. I. Jafri, learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajiv Sharma, Sri R. R. Pandey, learned Counsel for the Opp. Party No. 2, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the entire record. 7. The question which crops up for consideration is whether the Applicant No. 2 Gulshan Jahan was major at the time of alleged occurrence ? Whether she joined the company of Applicant No. 1 (Jamshed) of her own sweet will? 8. Dr. Punit Kumar the consultant Radiologist of Meerut Diagnostic and Research Center examined Gulshan Jahan for Radiological test and opined her age about 20 years (Annexure-3 ). Similar is the opinion of the Chief Medical officer, Baghpat as his report dated 1-8-2000 (Annexure-8) indicates the age of Gulshan Jahan about 20 years. It is further pertinent to point out that in pursuance of this Courts order dated 4-9-1999 the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut appears to have examined Gulshan Jahan for ascertaining her age for radiological and Orthopedic test on 14-9-2000 and has determined her age "completed 18 years". The relevant part of the report of Chief Medical Officer dated 14-9-2000 reads as follows: " (1) X-ray Examination Plate No. 6711-12-13 dated 11-9- 2000 done at P. L. Sharma Hospital Meerut (report given by Dr. S. Singh Senior Radiologist P. L. Sharma Hospital Meerut) shows X-Ray Rt. Elboto Joint AP No. 6712-All the Epiphysis around the R- 1. Elbow joint are fused. (2) X-Ray Rt. Knee Joint AP No.- 6713 - (two plates) - Lower end Epiphysis of Rt. Femur upper and Epiphysis of Rt. Tibia almost fused-visible scar mark upper and Epiphysis of Rt. Sibula almost fused. (3) X-Ray Rt. Wrist Joint - AP No. 6711 Lower end Epiphysis of Rt. Ulna particularly fused Lower end Epiphysis of Rt. radius in partial fusion stage. Opinion: On the basis of the above, general appearance and physical built I am of the opinion that the age of Smt. Gulshan Jahan W/o Jamshed is about Eighteen years completed". 9. (3) X-Ray Rt. Wrist Joint - AP No. 6711 Lower end Epiphysis of Rt. Ulna particularly fused Lower end Epiphysis of Rt. radius in partial fusion stage. Opinion: On the basis of the above, general appearance and physical built I am of the opinion that the age of Smt. Gulshan Jahan W/o Jamshed is about Eighteen years completed". 9. Learned Counsel for the applicants on the basis of these reports has emphatically argued that Gulshan Jahan was major at the alleged time of occurrence which allegedly took place on 19- 9-1999 and she was medically examined by Dr. Punit Kumar on 27-5- 1999 (earlier to the alleged occurrence), by C. M. O. , Baghpat on 1-8-2000 and similarly by C. M. O. Meerut on 14-9-2000 about a year. Learned Counsel for the applicant has further argued that there may be variation of 2 years in age and he has relied upon Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of J & K, reported in AIR 1982 SC 1297 . The Honble Apex Court has made the following observations in the said case : "detenu was arrested and detained on October, 18, 1981. The report by the expert is dated May 3, 1982, that is nearly seven months after the date of detention. Growing in age day by day is an involuntary process and the anatomical changes in the structure of the body continuously occur. Even on normal calculation, if seven months are deducted from the approximate age opined by the expert, in October, 1981 detenu was around 17 years of age, consequently the statement made in the petition turns out to be wholly true. However, it is notorious and one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side. Undoubtedly, therefore, the detenu was a young school going boy. It equally appears that there was some upheaval in the educational institutions. This young school going boy may be enthusiastic about the students rights and on two different dates he marginally crossed the bounds of law. It passes comprehension to believe that he can be visited with drastic measure of preventive detention. One cannot treat young people, may be immature, may be even slightly misdirected, may be a little more enthusiastic, with a sledge hammer. It passes comprehension to believe that he can be visited with drastic measure of preventive detention. One cannot treat young people, may be immature, may be even slightly misdirected, may be a little more enthusiastic, with a sledge hammer. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case the detention order was wholly unwarranted and deserved to be quashed". 10. I have carefully gone through the judgment in the said case. The facts of the above case and those of the present case are similar. There is no other reliable evidence either oral or documentary to dispute the majority of Gulshan Jahan (Applicant No. 2 ). 11. The statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. of Gulshan Jahan was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut on 7-9-2000. According to her statement she was 21 years of age and she married Jamshed of her own sweet will. her statement is reproduced as under: @hindi = eerceleer ieguemeve peneb Heg$eer Gcejoerve Gce 21 meeue, efvejeemeer cejeea Kego&, Leevee Jeeuesveer, efpeuee yeeiehele ves memehele yeeeve efke ee efke - @hindi = ceq 21 Jee& ke er ntb~ ceqves pecemeso Deueer Heg$e Deueer Demeiej mes Meeoer ke j ueer nw~ ceqves efveke en ke j efueee~ cesj" cew efveke en efke ee nw~ efveke en kes iejeen Fjhe eve Je ueeue nw oesveew cesj" kes nq~ ceqves Deheveer Fe Je Kegmeer mes pecemeso Deueer kes meele Meeoer efke ee nw ceq Deheves ceeb yeehe kes meele vener jnvee eenleer~ ceq pecemeso Deueer kes meele ner jntbieer~ Deewj keg vener ke nvee nw~ pecemeso cegpes peyejomleer vener ues ieee~ jpeecevoer mes Meeoer efke ee~ Section 363 of the IPC reads as under: "punishment for kidnapping.-Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable so fine. 12. Apparently Gulshan Jahan right from the day when she became major ceased to be under the guardianship of her father opposite Party NO. 2 (Umardeen ). 12. Apparently Gulshan Jahan right from the day when she became major ceased to be under the guardianship of her father opposite Party NO. 2 (Umardeen ). Section 366 IPC reads as follows: "kidnapping, abducting or inducting woman to compel her marriage, etc.- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as, defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid". 13. The statement of Gulshan Jahan indicates that she willingly joined the company of Jamshed and married him of her own sweet will. 14. Sri Manoj Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicants has further argued that the applicant being major entered the marital tie of their own sweet will. They are living as husband and wife since 19-9- 1999 and have also procured a child of their wed-lock. He has also argued that the facts mentioned in the First Information Report are concocted and manipulated. The investigation into the case is neither fair nor independent. Therefore, the charge-sheet dated 31-12-1999 (Annexure-5) is not the origin of correct and true facts. 15. In this continuation he has further argued that both being adults the law does not prohibit them to love each other. They have right to live with dignity and honour and make their life meaningful. In Kharag Singh v. State, AIR 1963 SC 1295 ; Govind v. State of M. P. , AIR 1975 SC 1378 and PUCL v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568 . They have right to live with dignity and honour and make their life meaningful. In Kharag Singh v. State, AIR 1963 SC 1295 ; Govind v. State of M. P. , AIR 1975 SC 1378 and PUCL v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568 . It was held that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to privacy : "article 21 of the Constitution of India reads as under.- Protection of life and personal liberty-no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. " 16. Considering the facts, as stated, above I arrive at an irresistible conclusion that the present application should be allowed and the application is accordingly allowed. The charge- sheet dated 31-12- 1999 (Annexure-5) and the entire proceedings arising from case Crime No. 128 of 1999 are hereby quashed. Application allowed. .