[2025:JHHC:26219] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No.613 of 2025 ------ 1. Sunay Khaitan, son of Late Sri Krishna Khaitan, aged about 64 years, resident of 7 No. Bipalabi Ambika Chakraborty, Sarani, P.O.: Sarat Bose Post Office & P.S.: Lake Thana, Kolkata-700029 (West Bengal) 2. Sunil Khaitan, son of Sri Sunil Krishna Khaitan, aged about 33 years, resident of 7 No.Bipalabi Ambika Chakraborty, Sarani, P.O.: Sarat Bose Post Office & P.S.: Lake Thana, Kolkata-700029 (West Bengal) .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. M/S. Prashant Sales, a proprietorship firm through its proprietor Mr. Prabhakar Gautam, having its registered address at North Market Road, Upper Bazar, P.O.: G.P.O & P.S.: Kotwali, Ranchi- 834001 (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG-IA For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nilesh Kumar,Advocate ------ Order No.03 Dated- 29-08-2025 Heard the parties. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for restoration of W.P.(Cr.) No.478 of 2024 to its original file which stood dismissed for default on 27.02.2025 for non- compliance of the order dated 13.02.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that W.P.(Cr.) No.478 of 2024 stood dismissed for default on 27.02.2025 for non-compliance of the order dated 13.02.2025, within the stipulated time. It is next submitted that the W.P.(Cr.) No.478 of 2024 be restored to its original file, inasmuch as the non-compliance of the order dated 13.02.2025 is absolutely unintentional and the same happened, despite due diligence of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said W.P.(Cr.) No.478 of 2024 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the W.P.(Cr.) No.478 of 2024 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for restoration of the said W.P.(Cr.) No.478 of 2024 and submits that the opposite party No.2 will unnecessarily be harassed if the W.P.(Cr.) No.478 of 2024 is restored to its original file, hence, the opposite party no.2 be compensated adequately in terms of cost. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, W.P.(Cr.) No.478 of 2024 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.5,000/- by the petitioners to the opposite parties No.2 through his counsel appearing in the record within six weeks from the date of this order. Registry is directed to list W.P.(Cr.) No.478 of 2024 before the concerned Bench after six weeks only if the petitioners filed the proof of paying pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- to the opposite party No.2 through his counsel appearing in the record within six weeks from the date of this order; failing which, this conditional order shall not be given effect to and W.P.(Cr.) No.478 of 2024 shall remain dismissed. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Rohit/