( 2025:JHHC:26236 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.4058 of 2023 ------ 1. Bigan Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Late Sarwjeet Singh, 2. Madan Singh, aged about 65 years, 3. Ishwari Singh, aged about 63 years, 4. Binod Singh, aged about 61 years, 5. Shayam Deo Singh, aged about 59 years, 6. Vijay Singh, aged about 57 years, Sl. No.2 to 6 all sons of Bigan Singh, All residents of Village-Salaiya, P.O.-Khairadohar, P.S.-Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-Palamau. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Lakhan Saw, son of Late Hajari Saw, 3. Ramchandra Prasad, son of Late Hajari Saw, Both residents of village-Salaiya, P.O.-Khairadohar, P.S.-Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-Palamau. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Advocate : Ms. Diksha Rani, Advocate : Ms. Priya Saw, Advocate For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P. For the OP 2 & 3 : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate ------ Order No:-04 Dated:-29-08-2025 Heard the parties. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for restoration of Cr.M.P. No.4318 of 2022 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 02.11.2023. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Cr.M.P. No.4318 of 2022 stood dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 02.11.2023 for filing requisites for service of notice upon the opposite party no.2 & 3 peremptorily within two weeks. It is next submitted that the Advocate’s clerk all of sudden moved to his native place to serve his ailing mother without handing over the file to other connected person, hence, the petitioners could not file the said requisites within the stipulated time; which resulted in dismissal of the said Cr.M.P. No.4318 of 2022 for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 02.11.2023. It is next submitted that non- compliance of peremptory order dated 02.11.2023 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.4318 of 2022 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.4318 of 2022 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 & 3 vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners for restoration of the said Cr.M.P. No.4318 of 2022 and submits that the opposite party No.2 & 3 will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is restored to its original file, hence, the opposite party No.2 & 3 be compensated adequately. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Cr.M.P. No.4318 of 2022 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 & 3 through his counsel appearing in the record within two weeks from the date of this order. Registry is directed to list Cr.M.P. No.4318 of 2022 before the concerned Bench after two weeks only if the petitioners file the proof of payment of the cost of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party No.2 & 3 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.4318 of 2022 shall remain dismissed. This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/