( 2026:JHHC:559 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2832 of 2025 ------ Som Raj Sharma @ Capt. Som Raj Sharma, aged about 80 years, son of Late Baldeo Prasad Sharma, R/o -Bhati Shanker Kaur, Behranga Kamahi Devi, P.O. & P.S.-Hoshiarpur, District-Hoshiarpur, State- Punjab, PIN No.144223. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sonmati Shukla, W/o Sri Brajeshwar Shukla, R/o-106, Shiweshwari Enclave, Harihar Singh Road, Morabadi, P.O. & P.S.-Bariatu, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P. For the OP 2 : Mr. Ram Manohar Pathak, Advocate ------ Order No:-03 Dated:-09-01-2026 Heard the parties. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for restoration of Cr.M.P. No.836 of 2024 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 19.12.2024. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Cr.M.P. No.836 of 2024 stood dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 19.12.2024 for removing the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter peremptorily within two weeks. It is next submitted that due to inadvertence on the part of advocate’s clerk, the petitioner could not remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within the stipulated time; which resulted in dismissal of the said Cr.M.P. No.836 of 2024 for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 19.12.2024. It is next submitted that non-compliance of peremptory order dated 19.12.2024 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.836 of 2024 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.836 of 2024 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 vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for restoration of the said Cr.M.P. No.836 of 2024 and submits that the opposite party No.2 will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is restored to its original file, hence, the opposite party No.2 be compensated adequately. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Cr.M.P. No.836 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.2,000/- by the petitioner to the opposite party No.2 through his counsel appearing in the record within four weeks from the date of this order. Registry is directed to list Cr.M.P. No.836 of 2024 before the concerned Bench after four weeks only if the petitioner files the proof of payment of the cost of Rs.2,000/- to the opposite party No.2 through his 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.836 of 2024 shall stand dismissed. This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 09/01/2026 Abhiraj/