IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3069 of 2024 ------ 1. Urmila Pandey aged about 70 years, W/O late Ramjee Pandey 2. Mola Pandey aged about 40 years, D/O late Ramjee Pandey Both Resident of 17/18 Hira Nagar Jari Patka, Ring Road, Opposite Divya Jyoti Complex, P.O. & P.S.- Jari Patka, District Nagpur, Maharashtra, Also Resident of Pandey Complex, Main Road, P.O. and P.S. Parsudih, District- East Singhbhum, Town- Jamshedpur … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dhanwati Pandey W/o Late Awadhesh Kumar Pandey Resident of Pandey Complex, Main Road, Parsudih, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Parsudih, District- East Singhbhum. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Pandey A.N. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No:-03 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.3220 of 2018 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 13.09.2024. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Cr.M.P. No.3220 of 2018 stood dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 13.09.2024. It is next submitted that Cr.M.P. No.3220 of 2018 was listed before this Bench but as inadvertently, the learned counsel could not mark the case in the cause list, hence, he could not turn up when Cr.M.P. No.3220 of 2018 was called out; which resulted in dismissal of the said Cr.M.P. No.3220 of 2018. It is next submitted that non-prosecution before this Court 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.3220 of 2018 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.3220 of 2018 be restored to its original file. Learned 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.3220 of 2018 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 in terms of costs. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Cr.M.P. No.3220 of 2018 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 her counsel appearing in the record within two weeks from the date of this order. Registry is directed to list Cr.M.P. No.3220 of 2018 before the concerned Bench after two weeks only if the petitioners pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party No.2 though her counsel appearing in the record and files the proof of the same, 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.3220 of 2018 shall stand dismissed. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/