Anno Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Page No.1 of 8 Court No. - 12 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1872 of 2024 Petitioner :- Anno Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Amar Singh,Jai Vardhan Srivastava Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶2By means of the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – Anno Khan has sought the following main relief (s) :- "I. To set-aside the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 passed by court of Additional Session Judge room No.04/Special Judge (E.C. Act) Gonda in Criminal Appeal No.49/2023 (Pravej Alam and others Vs. Anno Khan and another) in the interest of justice. II. To stay the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 passed by court of Additional Session Judge room No.04/Special Judge (E.C. Act) Gonda in Criminal Appeal No.49/2023 (Pravej Alam and others Vs. Anno Khan and another) in the interest of justice."

¶3Brief facts of the case are to the effect that marriage between the petitioner and opposite party no.2/Parvej Alam was solemnized on 18.01.2016 as per Muslim rites and rituals. Thereafter on account of some dispute the petitioner left her matrimonial home and started living separately.

¶4The petitioner on 28.08.2019 instituted a case under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'Act 2005') and the same was registered as Case No.794 of 2019 (Anno Khan Vs. Pravej and others). The aforesaid Case No.794 of 2019 filed Page No.2 of 8 under Section 12 of Act 2005 was decided vide order dated

04.04.2022 by Civil Judge (Junior Division), FTC IInd, Gonda. The operative portion of the order dated 04.04.2022 reads as under. "वादिनी अधि व्ሹा ्ቛारा ाखिल खिलखित बहस का परिरशीलन दिकया गया। प्ቔावली पर संल्ሿ डी०आई०आर० रिरपो्቏% से भी दिवप्ቌीगण ्ቛारा ्ቚाቕኌ,नी के दिवरु्ቍ घरेलू िሻहसा कारिरत दिकया जाने का पृ्቗ांकन पाया जाता है। ारा 3 घरेलू िሻहसा से मदिहलाओं का संर्ቌण अधि दिनयम 2005 में घरेलू िሻहसा को परिरभादि9त दिकया गया है, जिजसमें शारीरिरक िሻहसा, लैंदिगक िሻहसा, मौखिक एवं भावनात्मक िሻहसा, आቕኌ,क िሻहसा को शादिमल दिकया गया है, जिजसमें हेज मांग के संबं में हादिन पहुंचाना ्ቚतादिAत करना शादिमल है। घरेलू िሻहसा में मदिहलाओं का संर्ቌण दिनयम 2006 के ्ቚारूप-4 के ्ቚस्तर 3 में मौखिक और भावनात्मक िሻहसा से हेज़ इत्यादि ना लाने पर अपमान करना शादिमल है एवं ्ቚस्तर 4 आቕኌ,क िሻहसा में घर के दिकसी भाग में जाने या उपभोग करने से रोकना शादिमल है। वादिनी्ቛ ारा दिए गए बयान एवं उपरो्ሹ परिरचचा% के आ ार पर यह सादिबत होता है दिक वादिनी ारा-2 के अंतग%त पीदिAत व्यदि्ሹ दिक ्ቦेणी में आती है। उसके ्ቛारा दिवप्ቌी के सा, सांझी गृहस्,ी में डोमे቗ኌस््቏क वायलेंस एक््቏ के अंतग%त जीवन व्यतीत दिकया गया एवं ्ቚाቕኌ,नी पर घरेलू िሻहसा कारिरत की गई। उपरो्ሹ परिरचचा% के अनुसार-्ቚा,%ना प्ቔ स्वीकार दिकए जाने का आ ार पया%्቎ है। आेश वादिनी का ्ቚा,%ना प्ቔ अंतग%त ारा-12 घरेलू िሻहसा से मदिहलाओं का संर्ቌण अधि दिनयम, 2005 स्वीकार दिकया जाता है।

ारा 18 व 19 घरेलू िሻहसा से मदिहलाओं का संर्ቌण अधि दिनयम, 2005 के अंतग%त दिवप्ቌीगण को आेशिशत दिकया जाता है दिक वादिनी जिजस मकान में दिववाह उपरांत रह रही ,ी उसमें रहने के खिलए ्ቚधितब्ቍ है, उसमें से उसे दिनकालने का ्ቚयास ना करें त,ा वादिनी को सांझी गृहस्,ी ्ቇा०-रोचीपुरा लेन नं०-01 दिनरंजनपुर माजरा, ,ाना दिनरंजनपुर जिजला ेहराून, उ्ቈराण्ड के जिजस दिहस्से में दिनवास करना चाहती है, उसमें बा ा ना उत्प्ቐ करें।

ारा 20 व 22 घरेलू िሻहसा से मदिहलाओं का संर्ቌण अधि दिनयम, 2005 के तहत दिवप्ቌीगणों के आय के ्ቨोत के दिकसी भी स्तावेजी साቌኚय के प्ቔावली पर ना उपलब् होने के कारण परंतु पीदिAता के हालात ेते हुए, दिवप्ቌी सं-01 परवेज आलम को आेशिशत दिकया जाता है दिक वह पादिनी को मुठ 2,000/- रुपए (ो हजार रूपये) माजिसक गुजर बसर हेतु हर महीने दिक 10 तारी तक अा करना सुदिनधिYत करें। उ्ሹ

नराशिश माह अ्ቚैल 2022 की 10 तारी (माह अ्ቚैल 2022 को शादिमल करते हुए) ेय होगी। उ्ሹ

नराशिश वादिनी ्ቦीमती अ््ቐोान व दिवप्ቌी सं०-01 परवेज आलम के दिववाह के संबं के वै रहने तक ेय होगी। दिवप्ቌीगण को वादिनी ्ቦीमती अ्ቐोान पर दिकसी भी ्ቚकार का घरेलू िሻहसा का कृत्य से दिन9ेधि त दिकया जाता है। उ्ሹ घरेलू िሻहसा का कृत्य करने से दिन9ेधि त Page No.3 of 8 दिकया जाता है। उ्ሹ घरेलू िሻहसा के कृत्य इस आेश उपरांत दिकये जाने पर दिवप्ቌीगण ारा 31 घरेलू िሻहसा से मदिहलाओं के संर्ቌण अधि दिनयम 2005 के अंतग%त उ्ቈराई होंगे। उ्ሹ आेश की ्ቚधितखिलदिप संबंधि त ,ाने को अनुपालन हेतु ्ቚेदि9त की जाए। सबंधि त ,ाने के एस०एच०ओ० को दिन[शिशत दिकया जाता है दिक वे पीदिAता के साझे दिनवास में रहने हेतु उधिचत सहायता ्ቚान करें।"

¶5Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2022, referred above, a Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2023 (Parvej Alam & others Vs. Anno Khan & another) was filed before the Session Judge, Gonda.

¶6Vide order dated 29.02.2024, under challenge in the instant petition, the Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2023 has been finally decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Special Judge (E.C. Act), Gonda. The operative portion of the aforesaid order reads as under. "अपीला,\ ्ቛारा योजिजत ्ቚस्तुत ा቗ኌण्डक अपील संख्या 49/2023, परवेज आलम आदि बनाम ्ቦीमती अ्ቐो ान आदि मु० 10,000/- (स हजार रुपये) हज[ पर स्वीकार दिकया जाता है। न्यायालय जिसदिवल जज (जू०धिड०) / एफ०्቏ी०सी० दि्ቛतीय, गोण्डा ्ቛारा वा संख्या 1049/2019, अ्ቐो ान बनाम परवेज आलम आदि, अन्तग%त ारा 12 घरेलू िሻहसा से मदिहलाओं का संर्ቌण अधि दिनयम 2005 में पारिरत आेश दिनांदिकत 04.04.2022 अपास्त दिकया जाता है। उभयप्ቌ को आेशिशत दिकया जाता है दिक सुनवाई हेतु दिवचारण न्यायालय के सम्ቌ दिनांक 11.03.2024 को उप቗ኌस्,त हों। इस दिनण%य की ्ቚधित के सा, दिवचारण न्यायालय की तलब शुा प्ቔावली दिव्ቛान दिवचारण न्यायालय को्ቚ धित्ቚेदि9त की जाये।"

¶7From the record it appears that the appeal was filed by the private opposite party on the main ground to the effect that the order dated 04.04.2022, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), FTC IInd, Gonda is an ex-parte order and no notice of the case was served.

¶8The Session's Court after considering the paper book of Case No.794 of 2019, decided on 04.04.2022, found that the notice was actually not served upon the private opposite parties and, Page No.4 of 8 therefore, allowed the appeal vide order dated 29.02.2024, under challenge, which is apparent from para 11 of the said judgment/order under challenge, which reads as under. "11. ्ቚ्቞ गत आेश व सम्ब቗ኌन् त प्ቔावली के अवलोकन से यह दिवदित है दिक्ቚ त्यቕኌ,नी / परिरवादिनी ्ቛारा दिव्ቛान दिवचारण न्यायालय के सम्ቌ ारा 12 घरेलू िሻहसा से मदिहलाओं का सर्ቌण अधि दिनयम के अन्तग%त ्ቚा,%ना प्ቔ वा संख्या- 1049/2019 अपीला,\गण के दिवरू्ቍ योजिजत दिकया गया ,ा जिजसमें दिवप्ቌीगण को नोदि्቏स जारी की गयी त,ा जिजला ्ቚोबेशन अधि कारी/संर्ቌण अधि कारी से आख्या तलब की गयी। जिजला ्ቚोबेशन अधि कारी

, गोण्डा की आख्या दिनांदिकत

25.06.2021

प्ቔावली पर ाखिल है जिजसके अनुसार ्ቚत्य,\गण पर नोदि्቏स

तामील कराये जाने हेतु नोदि्቏स जिजला ्ቚोबेशन अधि कारी

/ संर्ቌण अधि कारी

, आगरा को ्ቚेदि9त दिकये गये त,ा घरेलू घ्቏ना रिरपो्቏% तैयार करके ाखिल की गयी। दिवप्ቌीगण पर तामीलशुा नोदि्቏स प्ቔावली पर ाखिल नहीं है न ही जिजला्ቚ ोबेशन अधि कारी

/ संर्ቌण अधि कारी

, आगरा की कोई आख्या ाखिल है।

न्यायालय से जारी नोदि्቏स जरिरये रजिजस््቏र ्ቚेदि9त दिकये गये जो अम तादिमल प्ቔावली पर ाखिल है। प्ቔावली पर आेश प्ቔ पर दिनांक 27.10.2021 को दिवप्ቌीगण पर नोदि्቏स तादिमला ्ቚा्቎ है का अंकन है त,ा वा की काय%वाही दिवप्ቌीगण के दिवरु्ቍ एकप्ቌीय रुप से अ्ቇसारिरत की गयी। प्ቔावली पर दिवप्ቌीगण पर तामीला के संबं में अन्य कोई दिववरण नहीं है दिक दिकस ्ቚकार दिवप्ቌीगण पर तामीला पया%्቎ माना गया। यह उ्ቤेनीय है दिक दिवप्ቌी सं०

का पता

( जिजला ेहराून उ्ቈराण्ड अंदिकत है परंतु तामील के खिलए कोई

नोदि्቏स ेहराून जिजला ्ቚोबेशन अधि कारी को ्ቚेदि9त नहीं दिकया गया है। दिनांक

27.10.2021 को दिवप्ቌीगण के दिबरु्ቍ वा की काय%वाही एकप्ቌीय रूप से अ्ቇसारिरत कर ी गयी और वादिनी के ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत साቌኚय के आ ार पर आ्ቌेदिपत दिनण%य दिनादिकत 04.04.2022 पारिरत दिकया गया। उ्ሹ काय%वाही से यह स्प्ቖ है दिक प्ቔावली पर ऐसा कोई साቌኚय नहीं है जिजससे यह ्ቚक्቏ हो दिक अपीला,\गण/दिवप्ቌीगण को वा की कोई जानकारी रही और पया%्቎ अवसर ेने के बा भी उनके ्ቛारा वा की काय%वाही में कोई सहयोग नहीं दिकया गया।"

¶9To rebut the aforesaid finding, no material has been placed on record.

¶10From the findings aforesaid it is apparent that the order dated

04.04.2022 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶11Natural justice is an important concept in administrative law. In the words of Megarry J it is "justice that is simple and elementary, as distinct from justice that is complex, sophisticated and technical". The principles of natural justice or Page No.5 of 8 fundamental rules of procedure for administrative action are neither fixed nor prescribed in any code. They are better known than described and easier proclaimed than defined.

¶12Natural justice is another name for common-sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified cannone. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common-sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form.

¶13The expressions "natural justice" and "Legal justice" do not present a watertight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defense.

¶14The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. There principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party Page No.6 of 8 determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed. against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the "Magna Carta". the classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to "vocate, interrogate and adjudicate". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works the principles was thus stated: "Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defense. 'Adam'(says God), 'where art thou? hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof, I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat."

¶15Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond.

¶16It is not possible to define precisely and scientifically the expression "natural justice". Though highly attractive and potential, it is a vague and ambiguous concept and, having been criticised as "sadly lacking in precision, has been consigned more than once to the lumber-room. It is a confused and unwarranted concept and encroaches on the field of ethics. Though eminent judges have at times used the phrase "the principles of natural justice", even now the concept differs widely in countries usually described as civilised. Page No.7 of 8

¶17It is true that the concept of natural justice is not very clear and therefore, it is not possible to define it; yet the principles of natural justice are accepted and enforced. In reply to the aforesaid criticism against natural justice, Lord Reid in the historical decision of Ridge V. Baldwin (1963) 2 All ER 66

(HL) observed: "In Modern times opinions have sometimes been expressed to the effect that natural justice is so vague as to be practically meaningless. But I would regard these as tainted by the perennial fallacy that because something cannot be cut and dried or nicely weighed or measured therefore it does not exist..…"

¶18Further, Natural justice is a branch of public law. It is a formidable weapon which can be wielded to secure justice to citizens. Rules of natural justice are "basic values" which a man has cherished throughout the ages. They are embedded in our constitutional framework and their pristine glory and primacy cannot be allowed to be submerged by exigencies of particular situations or cases. Principles of natural justice control all actions of public authorities by applying rules relating to reasonableness, good faith and justice, equity and good conscience. Natural justice is a part of law which relates to administration of justice. Rules of natural justice are indeed great assurances of justice and fairness.

¶19The golden rule which stands firmly established is that the doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. Its essence is good conscience in a given situation; nothing more-but nothing less.

¶20As Lord Denning in the case of Kandaa v. Govt. of Malaya, 1962 AC 322 observed that "if the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused person to know the case which is made against him. .He must know what evidence has been given and what Page No.8 of 8 statements have been made affecting him; and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them."

¶21Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Bishambhar Nath Kohli v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 65 held that "in revision proceedings, the Custodian General accepted new evidence produced by one party, but no opportunity was given to the other side to meet with the same. The Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice were violated."

¶22The Supreme Court in the case of Ramji Dass and others v. Mohan Singh, 1978 ARC 496 has held that as far as possible, Courts' discretion should be exercised in favour of hearing and not to shut out hearing. In that case the appeal was filed against an ex parte decree after eight years and the District Court as well as the High Court had rejected the matter on the ground of delay. However, setting aside the order of the High Court, Hon'ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer observed as under: "... we are inclined to the view that, as far as possible, Courts' discretion should be exercised in favour of hearing and not to shut out hearing. Therefore, we think that the order of the High Court should not have been passed in the interest of Justice which always informs the power under S. 115 C.P.C. ..."

¶23Having considered the aforesaid including the specific findings in regard to service of notice upon the private opposite party in the impugned order dated 29.02.2024, which have not been refuted by placing appropriate evidence available on the record of the case in issue i.e. Case No.794 of 2019, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated

29.02.2024. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 15.10.2024 Anand/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench