Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the charge-sheet No.13/04 dated 27.01.2004 arising out from Case Crime No. 189 of 2003 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Bhognipur, District-Kanpur Dehat and also for quashing the proceeding of Case No. 903 of 2007 (State V. Dhruv lal and others) under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. 3. The notice was issued to respondent No.2 and further direction was issued for personal appearance of deponent Smt. Vandana Devi, applicant No.1 and her husband who is accused in the present case as applicant No.2. Further proceeding of the aforesaid case was stayed. on 28th April, 2008, both the husband and wife, applicant No.1 and 2 were present. However, there was no report regarding service of notice upon opposite party No.2 and he was not present. Thereafter again applicant Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the Court in compliance of the order dated 27th August, 2008. On that date also, the opposite party No.2 was not present. Thereafter, on 16th Oct, 2008 opposite party No.2 appeared and stated that he wanted to pursue the matter against the applicants and was not willing to compromise. Hence, three weeks time was allowed for counter-affidavit. Till date no counter affidavit has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that in fact applicant No.1 Smt. Vandana Devi ,who is daughter of opposite party No.2, Shri Lallan Tiwari, was major and on her own sweet will, solemnised marriage with applicant No.2, Dhruv Lal Shukla. There was a male child from a wed lock of applicant No.1 and 2. However, opposite party No.2 was not happy with the marriage. Hence, on the basis of false allegation, first information report was lodged and the investigating officer without verifying the true fact from the applicant No.1 submitted charge-sheet. Hence, the charge-sheet dated 27.01.2004 as well as proceeding is also liable to be quashed. 5. In spite of appropriate opportunity was given for filing reply to the affidavit filed by Smt. Vandana Devi, applicant No.1 (daughter of opposite party No.2), no reply has been filed. Hence, the version regarding the marriage of applicant No.1 with applicant No.2 has not been controverted. 5. In spite of appropriate opportunity was given for filing reply to the affidavit filed by Smt. Vandana Devi, applicant No.1 (daughter of opposite party No.2), no reply has been filed. Hence, the version regarding the marriage of applicant No.1 with applicant No.2 has not been controverted. If both are major and they solemnised marriage on her own sweet will, without any pressure then no offence is made out. 6. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances, it will not be useful and proper to continue the criminal proceeding against applicants. The charge-sheet No. 13/07 dated 27.01.2004 and the proceeding are hereby quashed. The interim order if any granted earlier is hereby discharged. 7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. 8. No order as to costs.