GUSTAD FRAMROZE TARAPOREWALLA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
Cr.M.P./1619/2026 · 2026-06-12
Anil Kumar Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16442 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16442 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:JHHC:17048] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1619 of 2026
------ Gustad Framroze Taraporewalla, aged about 55 years, son of Framroze Jahangir Taraporewalla, resident of Head Washery, Tata Steel Ltd., West Bokaro Division, P.O.- Ghatotand, P.S.- Mandu, District- Ramgarh
… Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Katrasgarh, Angar Pathra, P.O. & P.S. Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand
… Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA III
------
Order No:-02 Dated:-12-06-2026
Heard the parties.
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for restoration of Cr.M.P. No.2025 of 2025 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Court.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Cr.M.P. No.2025 of 2025 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Court to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter. It is next submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter, could not be removed within the stipulated time which resulted in dismissal of the said Cr.M.P. No.2025 of 2025 for non-compliance of the said peremptory order dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Court. It is next submitted that non-compliance of the said peremptory
order dated 15.10.2025 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.2025 of 2025 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.2025 of 2025 be restored to its original file.
Learned counsel appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection.
Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Cr.M.P. No.2025 of 2025 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.2025 of 2025 before the concerned Bench after a week.
This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-12.06.2026-Animesh/