IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2921 of 2024 ------ 1. Sukhdev Varnwal, aged about 54 years, son of Baij Nath Varnwal 2. Uma Devi, aged about 48 years, wife of Sukhdev Varnwal 3. Bipin Kumar Barnwal @ Bipin Modi, aged about 27 years, son of Sukhdev Varnwal 4. Rakhi Kumari aged about 24 years, daughter of Sukhdev Varnwal All residents of Gopnadih, (Near Chapra Hotel), P.O.-Munidih, P.S.-Putki (Munidih), District Dhanbad (Jharkhand). … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Parvati Devi wife of Sri Ramdeo Modi, resident of Gopnadih (Near Chapra Hotel), P.O.-Munidih, P.S.-Putki (Munidih), District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, Addl.P.P. For the OP 2 : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate ------ Order No:-04 Dated:-07-02-2025 Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for restoration of Cr.M.P. No.2529 of 2019 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-prosecution of the order dated 23.08.2024. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Cr.M.P. No.2529 of 2019 stood dismissed for non-prosecution of the order dated 23.08.2024. It is next submitted that Cr.M.P. No.2529 of 2019 was listed before this Bench on 23.08.2024 and the learned counsel for the petitioners could not mark the case, hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not turn up when Cr.M.P. No.2529 of 2019 was called out; which resulted in dismissal of the said Cr.M.P. No.2529 of 2019. It is next submitted that non-prosecution of the said order dated 23.08.2024 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said Cr.M.P. No.2529 of 2019 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the Cr.M.P. No.2529 of 2019 be restored to its original file. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners for restoration of the said Cr.M.P. No.2529 of 2019 and submits that the opposite party No.2 will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is restored to its original file, hence, the opposite party No.2 be compensated adequately. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Cr.M.P. No.2529 of 2019 is directed to be restored to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners to the opposite party No.2 through his counsel within two weeks from the date of this order. Registry is directed to list Cr.M.P. No.2529 of 2019 before the concerned Bench after two weeks only if the petitioners file the proof of paying the cost of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party No.2 through his counsel appearing in the record within two weeks from the date of this order; failing which this conditional order shall not be given effect to and Cr.M.P. No.2529 of 2019 shall remain dismissed. This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/