- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. By means of this petition, under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing of the summoning order dated 20.6.2007, passed by Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar, in Case No. 955 of 2007 (State v. Divesh Kumar and others), under section 366 I.P.C., at P.S. Syana, district Bulandshahar. The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that admittedly prosecutrix Padam, as it comes out from the FIR, is major because in the FIR her age is mentioned as 21 years, by her father. Learned counsel in support of his contention, with regard to her age, has also filed a certificate of High School Examination, wherein the date of birth of prosecutrix Padam has been mentioned as 4th December, 1988. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner Divesh Kumar @ Deepu married Padam and certificate of marriage dated 16.3.2007, is also annexed as Annexure to the petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that no case under Section 366 I.P.C. is made out and both Divesh Kumar and Padam had attained the age of majority, at the time of marriage.
(2.) Learned counsel for the State also does not dispute the contention with regard to the age of the applicant Divesh Kumar @ Deepu and prosecutrix Padam. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case. 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 3 AllCriC 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 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."
(3.) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the summoning order dated 20.6.2007, passed by Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar, in Case No. 955 of 2007 (State v. Divesh Kumar and others), under section 366 I.P.C., P.S. Syana, district Bulandshahar and proceedings pending before the court below are hereby quashed. The petition is allowed.;