# Sharifunnisa v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1439
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-12-15
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 6489(MS) of 2011
- **Bench:** Ajai Lamba
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sharifunnisa-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42073
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

3 All] Sharifunnisa V. State of U.P. and others
1439
bound to ensure that no violence occurs in
the court's campus. If violence takes place,
it should be immediately taken care of and
police be immediately moved to arrest the
culprits
and
bring
them
to
justice
irrespective of their position whether they
are pairokar of the litigants or lawyer or
police personnel. Violence in the court
campus cannot be tolerated and if the
District Judge is unable to check this, it will
be treated as failure on his part and the High
Court may take suitable action against such
District Judge, who failed to prevent
violence in the court campus or take proper
action in time. The presiding officer in
whose court witnesses are not allowed to
depose freely without fear will immediately
report the matter to the District Judge and
ensure proper security as well as conducive
ambience
for
a
witness
to
depose
independently and fearlessly.

19. It is also the duty of the District
Judge to ensure proper sitting place with
minimum infrastructure i.e. toilets, drinking
water etc.

20. It is seen that inadequate amount
is paid as diet-money to the witnesses under
General Rule(Criminal). Witness comes to
court from his house missing his one day
wages. Even in the National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme, one gets
more the Rs. 100. Rs. 10/- to 15/- is pittance
and not sufficient even for snacks what to
say for meal.

21. Registrar General and Principal
Secretary(Judicial), State of U.P. are
directed to take steps and ensure that the
amount of diet money which is ridiculously
low i.e. Rs. 10/- and 15/-(figures supplied
by Registry) is raised now looking to the
inflation,
minimum
wages
and
the
assistance that is provided by witness to the
Court.

22. With the aforesaid observation
petition is dismissed.

23. Copy of the judgment be sent to
Registrar General for placing it before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice so that efforts can
be made for amending the General
Rule(Criminal).

24. Copy of the judgment be sent to
Registrar General, High Court and Principle
Secretary, Judicial Government of U.P. for
necessary action.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJAI LAMBA, J.

Writ Petition No. 6489(MS) of 2011

Sharifunnisa

... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others ...Opposite parties

Constitution
of
India
-Article
226Quashing of criminal proceeding-offence
u/s 363, 366 I.P.C.-victim after attaining
majority-married with accused and living
in her matrimonial house-application for
disposes of Petition on merit keeping in
view
of
subsequent
development
of
compromise-direction of Magistrate to live
with her father-futile exercise-Petition
allowed in term of compromise.

Held: Para 8

In
view
of
the
above
facts
and
circumstances of the case, it would be in
the interest of peace and harmony to allow
the petition. Direction issued by the
Magistrate in the impugned order dated
10.10.2011 is to the effect that the
1440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
petitioner be directed to live with her
parents. The petitioner, however, being
married and having been rehabilitated in
her matrimonial home, no purpose would
be served in law, nor it would be in the
interest of families to have the petitioner
live in her parental house.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Lamba, J.

(C.M.A. No.126252 of 11:Application for
disposal of writ petition)

1. This application prays for disposal
of the main petition in view of changed
circumstances.

2. Mohd. Iliyas, father of the alleged
victim namely Sharifunnisa, lodged an
F.I.R. alleging commission of offence under
Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal
Code. The alleged victim Sharifunnisa,
petitioner, admittedly has attained age of
majority and has married of her own accord
with
Halim
S/o
Mohd.
Sajjad
on
17.09.2011.

3. As per contents of the application,
the parties have settled their disputes by
way of compromise, which has also been
placed on record alongwith application.

4. Learned counsel contends that in
view of the stand of the complainant and the
alleged victim, who is living in her
matrimonial home, no purpose would be
served by continuance of proceedings.
Rather, matrimonial life of the petitioner
and her husband would be disturbed.

5. Learned counsel for parties pray
that the petition be disposed of and order
dated 10.10.2011 passed by the concerned
Magistrate be quashed.

6. I have considered the contention of
the learned counsel for parties.

7. It appears that the parties have
settled their disputes by way of compromise
and the husband and wife are now living
together. Even the complainant, who
happens to be the father of the alleged
victim, has prayed for disposal of the
petition in view of compromise.

8. In view of the above facts and
circumstances of the case, it would be in the
interest of peace and harmony to allow the
petition. Direction issued by the Magistrate
in the impugned order dated 10.10.2011 is
to the effect that the petitioner be directed to
live with her parents. The petitioner,
however, being married and having been
rehabilitated in her matrimonial home, no
purpose would be served in law, nor it
would be in the interest of families to have
the petitioner live in her parental house.

9. Writ petition is accordingly
allowed. Order dated 10.10.2011 is hereby
quashed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.11.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.

Writ Petition No. 6743 (MS) of 2011

Abhimanyu and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others

 ...Opposite parties

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226admission in under graduate programminimum eligibility criteria fixed by the
Govt. as 50% for general candidate and
45% for reserve category in 10+2 exam-