JUDGEMENT Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the informant of Bihar (Soh Sarai) P.S. Case No. 35 of 2006 giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 651 of 2006, has prayed for setting aside the order dated 7.3.2007 passed in the said Sessions Trial by Sri Mohan Prasad, learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Nalanda at Biharsharif, whereby he has discharged Opp.Party Nos. 2 and 3 herein from the charges of Sections 363, 3 66A and 120B I.P.C. 2. It appears that the informant Mathura Prasad @ Mathura Yadav submitted a written report dated 1.2.2006 before the Officer Incharge of Soh Sarai Police Station inter alia stating that he had three sons and two daughters of whom his elder daughter was married and the younger daughter Sony Kumari @ Anjali, who was unmarried lived with him in his house and pursued her studies. It is alleged that accused Sanjay Yadav, who is the brother-in-law (Sala) of his younger son Anuj Kumar and lived with his father at Soh Sarai where he runs a S.T.D. Booth, whereas his father is employed in the Electricity Department. It is also alleged that Sanjay Yadav was on visiting terms in his house. It is further alleged that at about 5.00 P.M. on 1.2.2006 when the informant was in his shop, he saw accused Sanjay Yadav passing by his shop to go to his house and when he reached home an hour later and searched for his daughter, he was told that she had gone out shortly. He was also informed that Sanjay Yadav had come to meet his sister, in course whereof Anjali and Sanjay were found talking, whereupon the informant is said to have inquired from his daughter -in-law as to whether Sanjay had met her to which the answer came in the negative from the daughter-in-law. It is said that the informant with others then went out in search of Anjali, in course whereof Rajiv and the informants brother-in-law, Sanjay Yadav, informed him of having seen Anjali going on a motorcycle towards north from hospital road a short while ago, whereupon the informant along with his two sons, Guddu Yadav and Anuj Yadav went to the rented house of Sanjay Yadav but could not find his daughter and Sanjay Yadav was also found missing. Here the informant met Durga Yadav (father of Sanjay Yadav) to whom he complained that about an hour and half back Sanjay Yadav had visited his home and had fled away surreptitiously with his minor daughter. Durga Yadav is said to have informed him that Sanjay had come to the house some ten minutes back with Anjali and had left shortly. Affirming the action of Sanjay, Durga is said to have entered into an altercation with the informant party and also abused them. The informant was sanguine in his mind that Sanjay in collusion with his father with ulterior motive had seduced his minor daughter to marry her. 3. On the basis of the said written report, the aforesaid police case was registered under Sections 363, 366A/34 against Sanjay Yadav and Durga Yadav and after due investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet against the two F.I.R. named accused under Sections 363, 366 A and 120B I.P.C. and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 3.4.2006 took cognizance thereunder against both the accused and eventually the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial where it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 651 of 2006. It appears that a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was filed by the two accused for their discharge which for cogent reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 7.3.2007 of the learned Presiding Judge was allowed, notwithstanding the strong opposition by the State Counsel and the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the informant has filed this revision for setting aside the order of the learned Presiding Judge discharging Sanjay Yadav and Durga Yadav from the offence under Sections 363, 366A, read with Section 120B I.P.C. 5. Assailing the impugned order, the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate had misread/misinterpreted the various paragraphs of the case diary and had come to an erroneous conclusion by not approaching the case in correct perspective. It was also stated that the learned Presiding Judge had failed to appreciate the fact that the victim girl was a minor when the crime was committed. 6. It was also stated that the learned Presiding Judge had failed to appreciate the fact that the victim girl was a minor when the crime was committed. 6. From perusal of the impugned order dated 7.3.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 651 of 2006 it would appear that the learned Presiding Judge took pains to re-examine the materials available on the record and came to the finding that the victim girl was indeed a major and was competent to exercise her free will and volition and in exercise of that she had left the house to marry Sanjay Yadav with whom she was presently living. This was disclosed by the victim girl in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 7. The learned Sessions Judge also took pains to analyse the tentative age of the victim girl and on perusal of relevant documents including her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where she had stated her age as 22 years and was assessed as 19 years old by the learned Magistrate who recorded her statement, as also the report submitted by the Medical Board, came to the conclusion that the victim girl was indeed a major and , therefore, discharged both the accused, as she was free to exercise her own will by virtue of being a major. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that there was nothing in the police diary regarding inducement and force resorted to by the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge also took note of the fact that the daughter of the informant was travelling all alone and she having attained majority and able to exercise her free will and volition had left her house of her own accord. 8. From the discussions made above I find no apparent illegality and impropriety or irregularity in the order of the learned court. 9. In the result the Revision is dismissed.