JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. 2. Submission of the learned counsel for the accused applicant is that an F.I.R. was lodged on 28.8.1999 against applicant Mangare @ Mohd. Aqram and others as case crime No. 93 of 1999 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and 3(I)(XI) of SC and ST Act at P.S. Trilokpur, District Siddharth Nagar and the investigation was carried on. Finally, the charge-sheet was submitted against accused applicant and others. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the accused applicant is that the accused applicant married prosecutrix Lilawati Devi @ Hashina on 4.10.1999 as averred in para 9 and she was major at the time of marriage. It is further stated that the age certificate, annexed as Annexure 8 to this petition, was issued on 14.9.2001 wherein the radiological report of the prosecutrix Lilawati reveals her age, about 24 years. This certificate was issued by Chief Medical Officer. 4. Learned counsel also submits that out of the wedlock, both applicant and LIlawati Devi @ Hashina have one child. It is also submitted that this Court while passing the order dated 21.3.2002 had observed as follows : “The victim, Lilawati @ Hashina is present in this Court and she has also filed affidavit in support of the petition alleging that she has married with petitioner and also had an issue”. 5. Learned counsel also submits that prosecutrix Lilawati @ Hashina was major on the date of occurrence i.e. 16/17.6.1999. Learned counsel vehemently argues that no case under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and 3(I)(XI) of SC and ST Act is made out against accused applicant as the prosecutrix was major on the date of occurrence and also that she appeared before this Court and stated that she had married the applicant and having a child out of their wedlock. 6. In support of the contention raised above, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of Apex Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., 2006(56) ACC 234, wherein it is observed in paragraph 14 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. Hence she is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. 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. I find force in the argument of the learned counsel. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 5.12.1999 under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C and Section 3(I)(XI) of SC and ST Act at P.S. Trilokpur, District Siddharth Nagar and the order dated 21.12.1999 passed by learned C.J.M. Siddharth Nagar are quashed. ————