JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. None is present on behalf of opposite party No. 3. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings in Case No. 2256/9 of 2004, State v. Billu and others (Case Crime No. 150 of 2004, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Brahmapuri) pending before the learned Special C.J.M., Meerut. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicant Anoop Kumar and prosecutrix Smt. Rani, daughter of opposite party No. 3 had already married, as averred in para 2 of the present application and in support of the same the marriage certificate issued by Vadik Hindu Maha Sabha, Ghaziabad has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 and marriage registration certificate is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the application. It is further contended that the prosecutrix was examined thrice by medical officers and her radiological age was about 20 years. The medical certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Meerut, is annexed as Annexure Nos. 6, 7 & 8 to the application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the prosecutrix Rani was major on the day of occurrence i.e. 10.4.2004 according to the F.I.R. which is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the application. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicants that no offence under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. is made out as the applicant Anoop Kumar has already married prosecutrix Rani, who was major at the time of occurrence. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 2006(56) ACC 234, wherein, in a similar situation, the Apex Court was pleased to quash the proceedings under Sections 366, 368 I.P.C. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 6. In Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another (supra) in a similar situation, Hon’ble the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings under Sections 366, 368 I.P.C. In paragraph 14 of the report it is observed as under : “14. This case reveals a shocking state of affairs. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant times a major. This case reveals a shocking state of affairs. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant times a major. Hence she is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. There is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. Hence, we cannot see what offence was committed by the petitioner, her husband or her husband’s relatives.” 7. In the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the view that no offence under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. is made out. The proceedings in Case No. 2256/9 of 2004, State v. Billu and others (Case Crime No. 150 of 2004, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Brahmapuri) pending before the learned Special C.J.M., Meerut, is liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings in Case No. 2256/9 of 2004, State v. Billu and others (Case Crime No. 150 of 2004, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Brahmapuri) pending before the learned Special C.J.M., Meerut, is hereby quashed. ———