( 2025:JHHC:32891 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3117 of 2025 ------ 1. Kedar Yadav, Son of Sita Ram Yadav, age 44 years 2. Tapeshwar Yadav, Son of Sita Ram Yadav, age 41 years 3. Bhakwa Devi, wife of Sitaram Yadav, aged about 64 years 4. Sarita Devi, wife of Tapeshwar Yadav, aged about 37 years 5. Panwa Devi, wife of Late Ram Prasad Yadav, aged about 67 years. 1 to 5 are resident of village Kanjangi, P.S. & P.O. –Giddi, District –Hazaribag (Jharkhand) 6. Binod Yadav @ Binod Gope @ Yadav, Son of Bhikhan Gope, aged about 50 years, resident of village Jamira, P.S. Patratu & P.O. –Barkakana, District –Ramgarh (Jharkhand). … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Gudia Devi, Wife of Niranjan Yadav, D/o –Bishwanath Yadav @ Bishun Yadav, presently residing at Chapi, P.O. – Chapi, P.S. –Petarwar (Tenughat O.P.), District –Bokaro (Jharkhand). … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 31.10.2025 Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioners for restoration of Cr.M.P. No. 3093 of 2017 to its original file. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Cr.M.P. No. 3093 of 2017 was dismissed on 08.08.2024 for non-compliance of the peremptory order of this Court dated 31.07.2024, to file a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith the certified copy of the charge sheet. It is next submitted that after passing of the order dated 31.07.2024, the counsel for the petitioners has informed the petitioners and their Pairvikar but they could not come to the Court within the stipulated time for swearing affidavit, which resulted in dismissal of the said Cr.M.P. No. 3093 of 2017. It is next submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said Cr.M.P. No. 3093 of 2017 and unless Cr.M.P. No. 3093 of 2017 is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the Cr.M.P. No. 3093 of 2017 be restored to its original file. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Cr.M.P. No. 3093 of 2017 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal. List Cr.M.P. No. 3093 of 2017 under the appropriate heading after a week. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 31.10.2025 Sonu/Gunjan-