Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26732 (JHR)

SANTOSH KUMAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.M.P./816/2025 · 2025-06-20

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:JHHC:16360] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.816 of 2025 ------ Santosh Kumar Mishra, aged about 64 years, son of Baluam Mishra, resident of Latitgram, Kathitand, P.O. and P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pratibha Jha, W/O, D/O Not Known, Drugs Inspector, Ranchi, VI, P.O. + P.S. and District Ranchi … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P. ------ Order No:-03 Dated:-20-06-2025 Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for restoration of Cr.M.P. No.1579 of 2020 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 12.04.2023 passed by this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Cr.M.P. No.1579 of 2020 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 12.04.2023 passed by this Court to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter. It is next submitted that as the advocate concerned was out of Station; as he had gone to his village home, in the State of Bihar, for resolving the dispute arising amongst his other co-sharers, hence, the said defects could not be removed, within the stipulated time which resulted in dismissal of the said Cr.M.P. No.1579 of 2020 for non-compliance of the said peremptory order dated 12.04.2023 passed by this Court. It is next submitted that non-compliance of the said peremptory order dated 12.04.2023 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said Cr.M.P. No.1579 of 2020 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the Cr.M.P. No.1579 of 2020 be restored to its original file. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection. Considering the facts of this case and the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Cr.M.P. No.1579 of 2020 is directed to be restored to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal. Registry is directed to list Cr.M.P. No.1579 of 2020 before the concerned Bench after a week. This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/