[2026:JHHC:19534] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1395 of 2026 ------ Quraisha Khatoon @ Kuresha Khatun, aged about 55 years, Wife of Md. Quamruddin Ansari, Resident of Vill- Mayur Nachna, P.O. Barwadda P.S. Barwadda, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bhado Bibi wife of Late Royazuddin Ansari, resident of Vill- Kharkabed, P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 3. Khalid Ansari, Son of Nasibet Ansari, resident of vill- Parasi, P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 4. Md. Quamruddin Ansari @ Md. Quamruddin Nasibat Ansari, Son of Nasibet Ansari, resident of vill- Parasi, P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 to 4 : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate ------ Order No:-03 Dated:-03-07-2026 Heard the parties. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed with the prayer for restoration of Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2026 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 13.02.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2026 was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 13.02.2026. It is next submitted that Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2026 was listed before this Court on 13.02.2026 and the petitioner was directed to file requisites for service of notice upon the opposite party No.2 to 4 by speed post as well as under process of the court within two weeks from the date of that order but the requisites for the same could not be filed within the stipulated time as the counsel on record was out of station due to medical emergency and by the time he returned the stipulated period of time had already lapsed; which resulted in dismissal of Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2026 for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 13.02.2026. It is next submitted that non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 13.02.2026 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is further submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2026 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.278 of 2026 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 to 4 submits that the petitioner is deliberately delaying the disposal of the Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2026. It is next submitted that the opposite party No.2 to 4 will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is restored to its original file, hence, the opposite party No.2 to 4 be compensated adequately. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2026 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 petitioner to the opposite No.2 to 4 through their counsel appearing in the record and the petitioner is directed to file the proof of the payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner to the opposite No.2 to 4 through their counsel appearing in the record within four weeks from the date of this order; failing which, this conditional order shall not be given effect to and Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2026 shall remain dismissed. The Registry is directed to list Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2026 after four weeks to its original file before the appropriate Bench if the learned counsel for the petitioner files the proof of the payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner to the opposite party No.2 to 4 through their counsel appearing in the record within four weeks from the date of this order. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 03.07.2026 Saroj/