# Vaishali Mishra v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 135
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-11
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 6 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vaishali-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-51052
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
226 - Habeas Corpus - detenue under
illegal detention in her house with her
real brother and real uncle
- not
allowing her friend to meet her - wants
to marry the detenue - averments in
petition are nothing but a ploy to
defame the image of detenue as well as
her
family
members
-
photographs
appear
to
be
manufactured
and
tempered - no document shows any
affiliation or affection between detenue
and petitioner - forged and fabricated -
nothing on record to demonstrate that
detenue had made any complaint to any
competent authority about her alleged
illegal detention - detenue is a major girl
aged about 29 years - knows her welfare
very well - petitioner, aged about 32
years .(Para - 4,7)

HELD:-Case of the petitioner is nothing but a
ploy to defame the image of the detenue and
her other family members so that the family
members of the detenue under pressure and
fear
of
insult
may
compromise
the
situation.(Para - 10)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

## Text

1 All. Vaishali Mishra Vs. State of U.P.
135
of actual price of said land, even if the
money is refunded with interest; and (c) the
defendant-respondent, after receiving of
almost
more
than
96%
of
sale
consideration, had not entered into the
contract under any circumstances which
makes it inequitable to enforce specific
performance."

39. This issue came up before me in
Mahendra Singh v. Ramesh Singh, 2020
(10) ADJ 93. That was a case where out of
the settled consideration of Rs.50,000/-, the
defendant
had
received
a
sum
of
Rs.45,000/- at the time of execution of the
contract. In Mahendra Singh (supra), I
held:

"70. Once this Court is assured
that the Lower Appellate Court has rightly
concluded that the defendant has received a
sum of Rs. 45,000/-, out of the total sale
consideration of Rs. 50,000/- agreed, the
scales for the exercise of discretion in
favour
of
specific
performance
are
decisively tipped. The fact that the
defendant has received a sum of Rs.
45,000/- for one part, excludes any doubt
about the defendant being inequitably dealt
with by the plaintiff on account of his
illiteracy etc. At the same time, the fact that
the defendant has received a sum, that
accounts for ninety percent of the sale
consideration, places the plaintiff in a
position where he has done substantial acts
in performance of his part of the contract.
Nothing remains to be done on the
plaintiff's part, except payment of the
balance of Rs. 5000/- and meeting the
expenses of execution and registration of
the
conveyance.
The
doing
of
all
substantial acts in performance of the
plaintiff's part of the contract is a relevant
consideration, under sub-Section (3) of
Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act."

40. In view of what has been said
hereinabove, Substantial Question of Law
No. (I) is also decided in the negative
holding that where a substantial part of the
sale consideration is paid when the suit
agreement is executed or at any time before
action is brought, discretion generally
ought not be exercised against granting
specific performance under Section 20 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

41. In view of what this Court has
held on the two substantial questions of
law, the logical conclusion is that the
decree of the Trial Court ought to be
restored and that of the Lower Appellate
Court set aside.

42. In the result, this appeal succeeds
and is allowed with costs throughout. The
decree passed by the Lower Appellate
Court is set aside and that of the Trial
Court restored.

43. Let a decree be drawn up,
accordingly.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 135
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 6 of 2024

Vaishali Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajiva Dubey

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
226 - Habeas Corpus - detenue under
illegal detention in her house with her
real brother and real uncle
- not
allowing her friend to meet her - wants
to marry the detenue - averments in
petition are nothing but a ploy to
defame the image of detenue as well as
her
family
members
-
photographs
appear
to
be
manufactured
and
tempered - no document shows any
affiliation or affection between detenue
and petitioner - forged and fabricated -
nothing on record to demonstrate that
detenue had made any complaint to any
competent authority about her alleged
illegal detention - detenue is a major girl
aged about 29 years - knows her welfare
very well - petitioner, aged about 32
years .(Para - 4,7)

HELD:-Case of the petitioner is nothing but a
ploy to defame the image of the detenue and
her other family members so that the family
members of the detenue under pressure and
fear
of
insult
may
compromise
the
situation.(Para - 10)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim
Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rajiva Dubey, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashok
Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the
State-respondent No.1 and 2 and perused
the material placed on record.

2. This Habeas Corpus Writ Petition
has been filed on behalf of Vaishali Mishra
through her next friend Ashish Kumar with
following main prayers:-

"i. to issue a writ in the nature of
Habeas Corpus, commanding opposite
parties
No.3
to
5
to
produce
the
detenue/petitioner
before
this
Hon'ble
Court and to pass appropriate order for
her release after recording her statement
who has been illegally detained by opposite
parties Nos.3 to 5 in the petitioner's house
situated in Mohalla-Ayodhyapuri, CityLakhimpur, Police Station-Kotwali Sadar,
District-Lakhimpur Kheri and set her free.

ii. to issue any other writ, order
or direction in favour of the petitioner as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
appropriate
in
the
nature
and
circumstances of the case.

iii. to allow this writ petition with
costs."

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that detenue, namely-Vaishali
Mishra aged about 29 years resident of
Mohalla-Ayodhyapuri,
City-Lakhimpur,
Police Station-Kotwali Sadar, DistrictLakhimpur Kheri, who is residing in the
same house with her real brother and real
uncle i.e. respondent No.3 and 4 and as per
the case set up by the petitioner, the
detenue has been kept under illegal
detention. It is also alleged that respondent
No.5 is the real maternal uncle of the
detenue. He further submits that the
detenue, namely-Vaishali Mishra is a major
girl and as per her educational certificates
her date of birth is 01.06.1994 and has
completed her education in Bachelor of
Science (B.Sc.) and Bachelor of Education
(B.Ed.).

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that this writ petition has been filed
by Ashish Kumar, the next friend of
detenue,
namley-Vaishali
Mishra.
He
further submits that there is love affair
between the detenue and the petitioner,
namely-Ashish Kumar since 2011 and they
want to marry each other but the family
members of the detenue are not ready for
their marriage, this averment finds mention
at paragraph No.9 of the affidavit filed in
1 All. Vaishali Mishra Vs. State of U.P.
137
support of the present petition. He further
submits that detenue, Vaishali Mishra and
Ashish Kumar used to meet regularly and
some photographs have also been annexed
as Annexure No.4 with this writ petition.
He further submits that the detenue is under
illegal detention in her house with her real
brother and real uncle and they are not
allowing her next friend, namely-Ashish
Kumar to meet her as he wants to marry the
detenue, thus, this writ petition has been
filed
with
aforesaid
prayers
and
interference by this Court is necessary in
the matter.

5. On the other hand, Shri Ashok
Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the
State-respondent No.1 and 2 have opposed
the submissions advanced by learned
Counsel for the petitioner, namely-Ashish
Kumar and submits that except some
photographs and one letter allegedly
written by the detenue-Vaishali Mishra no
other document has been annexed with this
petition to show that the detenue and the
petitioner, namely-Ashish Kumar are in
relationship or they have love affair
between them and they were going to
solemnize marriage with each other. He
further submits that as per the averments
made in this petition, the detenue and the
petitioner, namely-Ashish Kumar were in
relationship since 2011 and this petition has
been filed in the year 2024 but they have
not yet solemnized the marriage even after
13 years of their alleged relationship, thus,
it appears that the entire story as narrated
by the petitioner, namely-Ashish Kumar is
false and fabricated only with the intention
to defame the image of the detenue and her
family members in the society, the next
friend of the petitioner wants to take
advantage of the order of this Court. He
further submits that letter which has
allegedly being written by the detenue
appears to be forged and fabricated and
apart from the said letter no other
complaint was ever made by the detenue
before any competent authority, which also
demolishes the case of the petitioner,
namely-Ashish Kumar, thus, he submits
that the matter is very serious and no
interference by this Court is required in the
instant matter.

6. Learned A.G.A-I for the Staterespondents also submits that we live in a
society, which does not permit us to live or
make relationship in the form, which has
been narrated in the present petition. He
further submits that the case of the
petitioner,
namely-Ashish
Kumar
is
nothing but is a ploy to defame the image
of the detenue and her other family
members so that the family members of the
detenue under pressure and fear of insult
may compromise the situation, thus, this
petition may be dismissed with heavy costs
so that in future nobody tries to take
advantage of this Court in such type of
situations.

7. After considering the arguments of
learned Counsel for the parties and after
perusal of the material placed on record,
this Court is satisfied with the argument
made by learned A.G.A-I for the Staterespondents and express its opinion that the
averments made in this petition are nothing
but a ploy to defame the image of the
detenue as well as her family members, the
Court is also not satisfied with the
photographs
as
they
appear
to
be
manufactured and tempered, further, no
document has been annexed with this
petition, which shows that there is any
affiliation or affection between the detenue
and the petitioner, namely-Ashish Kumar.
The letter which has allegedly being
written by the detenue appears to be forged
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and fabricated as the entire letter has been
written in Hindi language but the signature
and address in the said letter has been
written in English language that creates a
doubt in the mind of the Court, the said
letter has been annexed with this petition
only to create an impression that the
detenue is willing to live with the
petitioner, namely-Ashish Kumar and she
has been detained illegally by her family
members and apart from the said letter
there is nothing on record to demonstrate
this fact that the detenue had made any
complaint to any competent authority about
her alleged illegal detention as claimed by
the petitioner. Further, it is not in dispute
that the detenue is a major girl aged about
29 years and she knows her welfare very
well and the petitioner, namely-Ashish
Kumar is aged about 32 years as per the
averments made in this petition.

8. Further, if both of them were in
love affair since 2011 and this petition has
been filed in the year 2024, there is no
plausible explanation on the part of the
petitioner, namely-Ashish Kumar as to who
has stopped them from marrying each other
for the last 13 years, thus, argument of
learned Counsel for the petitioner has no
force that the family members of the
detenue are restraining them marrying each
other. Further, it is also observed here that
in the entire writ petition there is no
averment
that
the
detenue
and
the
petitioner, namely-Ashish Kumar were in a
live-in relationship, thus, this Court finds
that the argument advanced by learned
Counsel for the petitioner, namely-Ashish
Kumar is made only with the intention to
get some order in favour of the petitioner,
namely-Ashish Kumar from this Court.

9. Accordingly, this Court does not
find any justification to entertain this type
of petition and to frustrate this type of
petition filed by any such person in future
only with the intention to defame the image
of a girl or her family members, who are
living in a society and if the Court
entertains this type of petition, the image
and reputation of family members as well
as of the girl will certainly be demolished
and it will be very difficult for a family
who has been roped in these type of cases
to solemnize the wedding of their girl in
future to any other family of their choice.

10. Further, this Court is of the view
that we are not living in a western country,
where this type of relationship is very
popular and common among the citizens,
We live in country, where people believe in
culture and traditions, which is the crown
of our country and we are proud of it,
therefore, we have to respect the traditions
and culture of our country. Coming to the
case of the petitioner, namely-Ashish
Kumar, which is nothing but a ploy to
defame the image of the detenue and her
other family members so that the family
members of the detenue under pressure and
fear of insult may compromise the
situation.

11. Thus, in view of the above, the
present petition is dismissed with a cost of
Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees
Twenty
Five
Thousand Only). The said amount of cost
shall be paid by the petitioner, namelyAshish Kumar, son of Sri Prem Praksh,
resident of Village-Futha, Police StationBheera, District-Lakhimpur Kheri which
shall be deposited before the District
Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri within one
month from today, thereafter, the District
Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri is directed to
pay the said amount, so deposited by the
petitioner, namely-Ashish Kumar to the
corpus, namely-Vaishali Mishra, daughter
1 All. Lalta Prasad Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
139
of Late Sri Alok Mishra, resident of
Mohalla-Ayodhyapuri,
City-Lakhimpur,
Police Station-Kotwali Sadar, DistrictLakhimpur Kheri within one month after
the said amount is deposited before it. In
case, the said amount is not deposited
before the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur
Kheri within the stipulated time, the
District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri is
directed to recover the said amount from
the petitioner, namely-Ashish Kumar as an
arrear of land revenue and pay the said
amount to the detenue, namely-Vaishali
Mishra for damaging her image in the
society.

12. Let a copy of this order be
transmitted to the Senior Registrar of this
Court, who shall communicate the same to
the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri
for necessary compliance forthwith.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 139
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 315 of 2024

Lalta Prasad Dwivedi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ram
Naresh
Yadav,
Vineet
Kumar
Chaurasia

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 - Sections 2(b), 2(c) & 7 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 408 & 120B -
U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 -
Sections 2(o), 35 & 124 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 227 & 482 -
Applicant challenged rejection of discharge
application, arguing he was not a public servant
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. Court held: (1) Applicant, as Assistant
Commissioner and Assistant Registrar, U.P.
Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, and appointed
Chairman of the Committee of Administrators of
a cooperative society under Section 35 of the
U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, was a public
servant under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, as he was remunerated by the
government for public duties. (2) Section 2(o)
and Section 124 of the U.P. Co-operative
Societies Act deem an administrator of a
cooperative society a public servant under
Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, reinforcing
applicant's status. (3) Applicant's claim of not
being a government servant was false, as his
appointment as Chairman stemmed from his
public servant role, supported by documents
annexed with the application. (4) Trial court's
rejection of discharge application was valid, as
sufficient material existed for trial under Section
7
of
the
Prevention
of
Corruption
Act.
Application u/s 482 dismissed. (Paras 10-19)

Application Dismissed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Naresh Yadav, the
learned counsel appearing for the applicant
and Sri Anurag Verma, the learned
Additional Government Advocate-I and
perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
applicant has challenged validity of the
order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the
Additional
District
and
Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, P. C. Act, Court No.6,
Lucknow rejecting the application for
discharge filed by the applicant in relation
to Crime No.686 of 2018 under Section 7