ORDER By the Court.- Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2. 2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 13.5.2010, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 253 of 2009, whereby and where under the petition for discharge was rejected by holding that a prima facie case is made out under Sections 366-A/376/417 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that a case was lodged by the informant-victim girl Anupama Mukhi alleging there in that she fell in love with this petitioner Vijay Lohar @ Bijay Lohar, who used to visit her house frequently. On 27.3.2009, petitioner called her on telephone to come to Jubilee Park. When she came there and met him the petitioner told her that he intends to marry her but his family members are not ready for it, Thereupon both came to a place where they stayed for three days, as husband and wife, There after this petitioner asked her to return to their places so that he may request his family members to allow him to marry her, Accordingly they came back and the petitioner went to his house. After sometimes he came back with his clothes and conveyed her that the family members are not ready for the marriage and then the petitioner left the place and went away. 4. Police after investigating the case submitted charge-sheet under Sections 366-A/376 of the Indian Penal Code, When the case was committed to the Court of sessions an application for discharge was filed taking plea that no case is made out either under Section 366-A or 376 of the Indian Penal Code as the petitioner had never eloped the informant rather she came with the petitioner willingly and had had sex with him with her consent but the plea of the petitioner was rejected by holding that the petitioner by giving a false promise to marry her had had sex with her and as such prima facie materials are there for framing charge under Sections 366A/376/417 of the Indian renal Code. But from statement made in the FIR and also from her statement made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it does appear that nothing is there to show that she had been allured by this petitioner with a view to seduce her to illicit intercourse rather it is the statement of the girl that when the petitioner called her to come at Jubilee• Park, she came where it was disclosed by the petitioner that his family members are not allowing him to marry her. Still according to her statements she willingly went with the petitioner to a place where she stayed for three days and lived like husband and wife, Thus it is never the case of the prosecution that on giving false pretext of marrying her the petitioner had had sex with the victim-girl and that the victim-girl has herself disclosed her age as 19 years, In this situation. no offence is made out either under Section 366-A/376 or even under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code still prayer for discharge has been refused and hence. Additional Sessions Judge has committed illegality by refusing to discharge the petitioner from the ,case Accordingly the order dated 13.5.2010 suffers from illegality and hence, it is set aside. 5. Consequently petitioner Vijay Lohar @ Bijay Lohar is discharged from the case. 6. In the result this revision application is allowed. Revision allowed.