JAMUNA PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11520 of 2024

Jamuna Prasad
                                                                   .....Appellant(s)
                                       Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)           :   Ravi Kant
Counsel for Respondent(s)          :   G.A., Hari Bans Singh, Nipun Singh,
                                       Vivek Chaturvedi

Court No. - 51
                       HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Hari Bans Singh, learned
counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
order dated 7th October, 2024 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T.
Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun in Final Report No. 88 of 2021
(Jamuna Prasad Vs. Manish Batra @ Chhotu and Others) under Section 323,
504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1) (da) and 3 (1) (dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police
Station-Kotwali, District-Buduan, whereby the protest petition filed by the
appellant has been rejected on the ground of non-prosecution.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is admitted fact that this is
the second protest petition filed by the appellant before the trial court, his first
protest petition has been allowed and further investigation was directed but
again police has filed second final report against which the appellant filed
second protest petition. During proceedings, due to some ailment the
appellant did not appear before the trial court for have his say in the matter
either by himself or by his counsel due to which his second protest petition has
been rejected on the ground of non-prosecution. In support of his case,
learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the relevant
documents qua his medical treatment, which are at page nos. 127 to 132 of
the paper book. Learned counsel for the appellant again submits that since the
impugned order passed by the trial court dated 7th October, 2024 is an ex
parte and the same has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing
to the appellant, which violates the principle of natural justice, therefore, the
same is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the A.G.A. for the State have
opposed the present criminal appeal. However, they could not dispute that
                                                            CRLA No. 11520 of 2024
                                  2

the second protest petition filed by the appellant has been decided ex parte,
without affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant so that he might
adduce his oral as well as documentary evidence. They further submit that in
compliance of the principles of natural justice, the matter ought to have been
decided on merits.

5. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the records
of the present criminal appeal, including the ex parte impugned order.

6. It is not disputed between the parties that the second protest petition filed
by the appellant has been decided ex parte and the trial court has not
considered the fact that every judgment or order should be decided on merits
instead of passing the same as ex parte.

7. It is settled law that every order passed which results in adverse civil
consequences to a party must be consistent with the principles of natural
justice, failing which the same would be unsustainable in the eyes of law.

8. The principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down
by the courts as the minimum protection of the rights of an individual against
arbitrary procedures that may be adopted by judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative authorities while making orders affecting such rights. These
rules are intended to prevent injustice.

9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant
should be granted one more opportunity to be heard on the second protest
petition filed by the appellant against final report no. 88 of 2021.

10. Consequently, order dated 7th October, 2024 passed by the Special
Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun in Final Report No.
88 of 2021 (Jamuna Prasad Vs. Manish Batra @ Chhotu and Others) under
Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1) (da) and 3 (1) (dha) of
S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Buduan is set aside.

11. The appellate court is directed to decide second protest petition filed by
the appellant against final report no. 88 of 2021 afresh on merits, in
accordance with law and the observations made herein above, by means of a
reasoned and speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both
parties, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

12. The present criminal appeal is allowed subject to the observations and
directions made above.
                                                                               CRLA No. 11520 of 2024
                                                                     3

                                    13. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                    April 23, 2026
                                    Sushil/-
                                                                               (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad