( 2026:JHHC:11165 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2981 of 2025 ------ Shyam Kumar Jalan, aged about 64 years, S/o Late Kedar jalan, R/o Jalan Road, Upper Bazar, P.O. & P.S. –Kotwali, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand). .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Bejoy Brota Palit, S/o Late Anant Kumar Palit, R/o Indu Villa, Karamtoli Chowk, P.O. & P.S. –Lalpur, District – Ranchi. .... .... .... Opp. Parties ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. ------ Order No.06 Dated- 17.04.2026 I.A. No.4444 of 2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer to delete the name of the opposite party no.2 – Bejoy Brota Palit who died prior to filing of this criminal miscellaneous petition. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, Registry is directed to delete the opposite party no.2 –Bejoy Brota Palit with red ink from the array of the opposite party in the cause title of this criminal miscellaneous petition. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No. 2981 of 2025 Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner for restoration of Cr.M.P. No.234 of 2008 to its original file. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Cr.M.P. No.234 of 2008 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 13.12.2024. It is next submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner was out of station on 13.12.2024 and he has requested his friend to mention the matter at the time of calling out of the case but unfortunately the friend of the petitioner’s counsel could not appear before the court when the case was called out, resulting in dismissal of the same. It is next submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said Cr.M.P. No.234 of 2008 and unless Cr.M.P. No.234 of 2008 is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that Cr.M.P. No.234 of 2008 be restored to its original file. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Cr.M.P. No.234 of 2008 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal. List Cr.M.P. No.234 of 2008 under the appropriate heading after a week. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 17.04.2026 Sonu-