2026:JHHC:25207 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P No.995 of 2026 Lovely Tantubai, aged about 30 years, Daughter of Bhagirath Tantubai, resident of Village- Pata Tola Kaliyadih, P.O-Chainpur, P.S. Chandil, District-Seraikella (Kharsawan) …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Lakhi Devi, W/o Subu Mardi, R/o Village- Pata Tola, Kaliyadih, P.O & P.S. Chandil, District-Seraikella -Kharsawan ……. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate For the State : None For the O.P No.2 : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, Advocate : Mr. Anup Kumar Yadav, Advocate ----------- 03/Dated: 19th August, 2026 Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. However, none appears for the State. 2. This Cr.M.P No.995 of 2026 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for restoration of Cr. Appeal (S.J) Filing No.6855 of 2025 which stood dismissed due to non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 11.09.2025 passed by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that three week’s peremptory order was allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to remove the defects as pointed out by the office. However, due to inadvertence, he could not remove the defect within time and typed copy of Annexure-1, page-20 and 21 and Annexure-3 were not filed within stipulated time. 2026:JHHC:25207 2 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he will remain careful in future and hence the Cr. Appeal (S.J) Filing No.6855 of 2025 may be restored. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submitted that sufficient reason has not been given in this Cr.M.P and the petitioner was negligent in removing the defect and hence this Cr.M.P may be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from going through the records of this case, it appears that vide order dated 11.09.2025, three weeks’ time was given to the petitioner to remove the defects in Cr. Appeal (S.J) Filing No.6855 of 2025, but the same could not be removed within time. However, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he will remain careful in future. 7. In view of the submission made above and in view of averments made in paragraph no.4, 5 and 6 of this Cr.M.P, the prayer for restoration of Cr. Appeal (S.J) Filing No.6855 of 2025 is allowed. 8. Thus, Cr.M.P. No. 995 of 2026 is allowed and Cr. Appeal (S.J) Filing No.6855 of 2025 is restored to its original file. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 19.08.2026 Saket/-