( 2026:JHHC:20528 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1197 of 2026 ------ Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Agarwala, S/o Late Gopi Chandra Agarwal, aged about 54 years, Resident of C/o Rudra Construction, Shop No.08, Shree Ram Complex, Durga Mandir Road, Hirapur, P.O.-Dhanbad, P.S.-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad. Presently residing at G.P. Cottage, Chanakya Nagar, Opposite Big Bazar, P.S.- Saraidhela, P.O.-Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, son of S.N.P. Sinha, resident of Cooperative Colony, Plot No.32D, P.O.-B.C.C.L. Township, P.S.-Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Kapardar, Advocate : Ms. Kavita Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P. For the OP 2 : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No:-03 Dated:-10-07-2026 Heard the parties. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for restoration of Cr.M.P. No.2964 of 2024 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.01.2026. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Cr.M.P. No.2964 of 2024 stood dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.01.2026 by this Court. It is next submitted that the Advocate on record could not mark the case from the daily cause list, hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not appear before this Court when the said Cr.M.P. No.2964 of 2024 was called out, resulting in dismissal of the said Cr.M.P. No.2964 of 2024 for non-prosecution. It is next submitted that non-prosecution on 20.01.2026 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.2964 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.2964 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.2964 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 facts of the case and the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Cr.M.P. No.2964 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 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.2964 of 2024 before the concerned Bench after four weeks only if the petitioner files the proof of payment of the cost of Rs.5,000/- 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.2964 of 2024 shall stand dismissed. This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 10/07/2026 Abhiraj/