HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11520 of 2024 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 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ravi Kant Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Hari Bans Singh, Nipun Singh, Vivek Chaturvedi Jamuna Prasad .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 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 2 13. There shall be no order as to costs. April 23, 2026 Sushil/- CRLA No. 11520 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad