JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. – This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a direction to the respondents to grant compensation to the petitioner in the light of Section 357A Cr.P.C. and under U.P. Compensation Scheme, 2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. has been lodged by father of the petitioner against one Anil Kumar son of Babu Khatik on 29.6.2015 which was registered as case crime no. 336 of 2015 under sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act with respect to an incident alleged to have taken place on 18.2.2015 stating in the evening when petitioner went for routine work in Jungle, the said accused caught hold her and at the point of country made pistol raped her and threatened that if she informed about it to any one her brother will be killed and he used to commit rape on her as and when got opportunity. When her married sister, namely, Pooja came at home on 26.6.2015, the petitioner told her that she is suffering from pain in abdomen on which the father of the petitioner got her ultrasound on 27.6.2015 at Vashisht Hospital Alamapur then it transpired that petitioner is having pregnancy of about 4 and half months. On asking, she told the entire story to her sister Pooja that one Anil Kumar has raped her. On coming to know about the said fact when the father of the petitioner told the entire story in village, the accused Anil Kumar threatened him to kill on which the father of the petitioner lodged the present F.I.R. 3. On 10.7.2015, charge-sheet has been submitted against accused Anil Kumar for the aforesaid offence on which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence on 20.7.2015. The case has also been committed to the Court of Session and is pending before A.D.J. Court No. 4, Muzaffarnagar being Special Case No. 209/9 of 2015 State v. Anil Kumar. 4. As per the F.I.R., the petitioner is stated to be minor girl as her date of birth according to the school leaving certificate of class-IV issued by the Head Master Prathamik Vidyalaya Mukalampura No. 2, District Muzaffar Nagar is 15.7.2003. The ossification test of the victim was also conducted by the C.M.O. concerned on 14.7.2015 and as per the ossification test she was found to be aged about 17 years. The ossification test of the victim was also conducted by the C.M.O. concerned on 14.7.2015 and as per the ossification test she was found to be aged about 17 years. The statement of the victim was recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. and by the Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. The medical report of the victim shows that she was carrying pregnancy of 19 weeks and 6 days and gave birth to a male child unwillingly on 5.11.2015 in District Mahila Cikitsalaya Muzaffarnagar and discharged from there on 7.11.2015. The father of the petitioner disclosing all the facts sent an application on 6.11.2015 to the District Magistrate Muzaffarnagar and Chief Secretary of the State requesting that his financial condition is very poor and he may be given some financial aid to look after the petitioner and her child. Similarly an application was also sent on 23.11.2016 to the Chairman State Women Commission Lucknow but no heed was paid by the respondent on his application, hence the petitioner preferred the present petition for grant of compensation to the petitioner and her child under section 357A Cr.P.C. as well as under U.P. Government Scheme, 2014. 5. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the learned A.G.A. on behalf of respondent no. 7 which is on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a victim of rape has given birth to an unwillingly child, who was born on account of rape committed on the petitioner by accused Anil Kumar. The financial condition of the petitioner's father is not sound, hence she may be granted compensation under section 357 (A) Cr.P.C. to take care of herself and her child. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards several authorities, who have been empowered to grant compensation to the victim of rape and child born out of the said crime. In this respect, it is stated that the State Government vide order dated 16.1.2015 has established District Steering Committee under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate for providing fund to such victim. He submits that being the sanctioning authority, the District Magistrate may sanction a fund up to a limit of Rs. 10 lacs to the victim. In this respect, it is stated that the State Government vide order dated 16.1.2015 has established District Steering Committee under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate for providing fund to such victim. He submits that being the sanctioning authority, the District Magistrate may sanction a fund up to a limit of Rs. 10 lacs to the victim. Similarly, the State Government vide order dated 7.1.2015 has constituted U.P. State Women's Empowerment Mission and under this Mission a State Monitoring Committee has been constituted which is to be chaired by the Chief Secretary. By the said Scheme, the Chief Secretary has been given power to grant relief of more that 10 lacs. He submitted that the State of U.P. in exercise of power under section 357 (A) Cr.P.C. has framed in U.P. Victim Compensation Scheme 2014 for providing fund for the purposes of compensation to the victim or his dependents, who has suffered loss or injury as a result of crime and who require rehabilitation. He argued that the petitioner and her child are victim of such circumstances and they suffered injuries because of heinous act committed on the petitioner, hence need rehabilitation. He argued that the grant of compensation to the victim for infringement of her life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is well recognised, hence she is entitled for the compensation under Section 357 (A) Cr.P.C. The State Government has responsibility to punish the wrong doer and on its failure also to see the victim of offence is not only compensated by the State for the loss and injury suffered but also for rehabilitation of the victim irrespective of the fact where the offender is convicted or acquitted and also in those cases where the offender could not be identified and no trial take place but the victim is identified. He also submitted that the State Government has notified U.P. Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh rules, 2015 duly notified on 6.2.2015 which may also help to the victim or her child. He lastly argued that the petitioner being minor and not capable to look after herself and what to say about her child. The father of the petitioner is a labourer as such petitioner and her child need compensation and rehabilitation from the State. He lastly argued that the petitioner being minor and not capable to look after herself and what to say about her child. The father of the petitioner is a labourer as such petitioner and her child need compensation and rehabilitation from the State. He also argued that if she is a minor, her consent, if any is meaning-less, her pregnancy and birth of child can not be denied by any one. As the charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused, the State cannot take stand otherwise as such interim compensation may given to her so that she may save herself and her child. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 3.11.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 8210 (M/B) of 2015 A' through her father 'F' v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Services & others. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. states that the case of the petitioner was considered by the District Steering Committee of district Muzaffarnagar and it has sanctioned and recommended for payment of Rs. 3 lacs. Thereafter the Director /Prescribed Authority of U.P. Rani Laxmibai Mahila Samman Kosh vide its order dated 2.2.2016 has directed for payment of the aforesaid amount and subsequently the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3 lacs was deposited in the account of the petitioner. Thus the victim has already paid Rs. 3 lacs under the relevant Rules and Regulations, the said fact has been stated in paras-3, 4 and 5 of the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent o. 7. He argued that the trial of the accused is still pending before the competent court and if any compensation is further to be granted to the petitioner, the same can be awarded by the trial court after going through the evidence brought before it which may if think it necessary may grant some compensation under Section 357 read with Section 357 (A) (3) Cr.P.C. and at this stage any further direction by this Court for grant of compensation to the petitioner in the present petition is not required. Moreover, the case law which has been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Moreover, the case law which has been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. It transpires that the petitioner, who claims herself to be a victim of rape and has given birth to a male child born out of the said crime. The father of the petitioner had made an application to the various authorities of the district and the State and she has already been granted compensation by respondent no. 7 of Rs. 3 lacs. under the U.P. Rani Laxmibai Mahila Samman Kosh which has also been admitted by the counsel for the petitioner. As the trial of the present case is still pending and the merits of the case is still to be adjudged by the trial court on the basis of evidence adduced before it, we do not think it proper to comment on the merit of the case as it is open for the trial court to grant compensation, if any, under section 357 Cr.P.C. read with Section 357 A (3) Cr.P.C. after going through the evidence and other materials brought on record, hence in our considered opinion it will not be appropriate to grant any further compensation to the petitioner at this stage. 11. The petition is accordingly, dismissed. Petition Dismissed.