Disposed¶20

Parshura Upadhayay v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Dec 2025Cr.M.P./1961/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: restoration of dismissed Cr.M.P.; peremptory order dated 17.04.2025; non-compliance; requisites to be filed within two weeks; mistake of advocate's clerk; non-compliance not deliberate or intentional; conditional restoration subject to cost of Rs.6,000/- payable to opposite party No.2 within two weeks; listing upon proof of payment only; failure means matter remains dismissed; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; single Judge Anil Kumar Choudhary; petition disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025 to its original file at the same stage, conditional on payment of cost of Rs.6,000/- to opposite party No.2 within two weeks; listing before the concerned Bench after two weeks only upon proof of payment, failing which the matter remains dismissed. ¶20

Parshura Upadhayay Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025, which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 17.04.2025, should be restored to its original file.

¶14

Court's answer

Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025 is restored to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal, subject to payment of cost of Rs.6,000/- by the petitioners to opposite party No.2 through his counsel appearing in the record within two weeks from the date of the order.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The restoration is conditional: the Registry is to list Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025 before the concerned Bench after two weeks only upon proof of payment of the cost of Rs.6,000/-; failing which the conditional order shall not take effect and Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025 shall remain dismissed.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.), Cr.M.P. No.1961 of 2025, order dated 05-12-2025: Petition seeking restoration of Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025, which stood dismissed for non-compliance of a peremptory order dated 17.04.2025 requiring filing of requisites peremptorily within two weeks. Non-compliance was attributed to a mistake on the part of the advocate's clerk and was submitted to be neither deliberate nor intentional. Learned counsel for the State raised no serious objection; opposite party No.2 opposed restoration, contending she would be unnecessarily harassed, and prayed for adequate compensation by way of cost. The Court directed restoration of Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025 to its original file at the same stage, subject to payment of cost of Rs.6,000/- by the petitioners to opposite party No.2 through his counsel within two weeks; the Registry was to list the matter after two weeks only upon proof of payment, failing which the conditional order would not be given effect to and the matter would remain dismissed. The criminal miscellaneous petition was disposed of accordingly.

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:36955 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1961 of 2025

¶3

Parshuram Upadhayay, aged about 60 years, son of Late Jagrnath Upadhayay, Resident of Village-Checharaiya Khurd, P.O.Shivpur, P.S.-Majhiaon, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand.

¶4

Sri Gauri Shankar Bind, aged about 74 years, son of Ramdev Bind @ Rajdeo Bind, resident of village-Nagwa, P.O.-Garhwa, P.S.-Garhwa, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand.

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Smt. Tara Devi, wife of Late Kariman Ram, Resident of villageDeepuwan, P.O. & P.S.-Garhwa, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand.

¶9

… Opposite Parties -----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioners : Mr. Santosh Kr. Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P. For the OP 2 : Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate

¶11

------

¶12

Order No:-03 Dated:-05-12-2025

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer for restoration of Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 17.04.2025.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025 stood dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 17.04.2025 for filing the requisites peremptorily within two weeks. It is next submitted that due to mistake on the part of advocate’s clerk, the petitioners could not file the said requisites within the stipulated time ; which resulted in dismissal of the said Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025 for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 17.04.2025. It is next submitted that non-compliance of peremptory order dated 17.04.2025 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025 and unless the same is restored to its

¶16

original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection.

¶17

Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners for restoration of the said Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025 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 in terms of cost.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025 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.6,000/- by the petitioners to the opposite party No.2 through his counsel appearing in the record within two weeks from the date of this order.

¶19

Registry is directed to list Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025 before the concerned Bench after two weeks only if the petitioners file the proof of payment of the cost of Rs.6,000/- to the opposite party No.2 through his counsel appearing in the record within two weeks from the date of this order failing which; this conditional order shall not be given effect to and Cr.M.P. No.640 of 2025 shall remain dismissed.

¶20

This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶21

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶22

05/12/2025 Abhiraj/

Parshura Upadhayay v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parshura Upadhayay v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ananya Sen Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Juned Ahmad Alias Juned Ahmad Diggar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramanuj Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary, Housing Department

Sayed Arshad Nasar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vivek Kumar Alias Vivek Kumar Chandravanshi Vs the State of Jharkhand