Allowed¶23

Pradhan Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Apr 2025Cr.M.P./268/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of dismissed criminal revision; Cr.M.P. No.268 of 2025 restores Criminal Revision No.338 of 2017 (parties from Gumla district) dismissed on 12.01.2024 for non-compliance of order dated 01.12.2023 concerning paper publication of notice upon O.P. No.2; Informant appeared, compromise likely, no objection by A.P.P. or Informant's counsel; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Justice Sanjay Prasad, order dated 17.04.2025; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of Criminal Revision No.338 of 2017 to its original file ¶23

Pradhan Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:JHHC:11656

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.268 of 2025

¶3

….

¶4

Pradhan Oraon aged about 44 years son of Sri Ranjit Oraon, resident of village-Srango, P.O. & P.S. Ghaghra, District-Gumla

¶5

……Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Rajio Oraon W/o Pradhan Oraon D/o Kunwar Oraon, resident of Village-Sarango, P.O. & P.S. Ghaghra, District-Gumla. At present resident of Bishunpur, P.O. and P.S. Bishunpur, District Gumla

¶9

……Opp. Parties

¶10

-----

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶12

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shambhu Nath Tiwary, Advocate

¶13

Order No.02/17.04.2025

¶14

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for restoration of Criminal Revision No.338 of 2017 which stood dismissed on 12.01.2024 due to non-compliance of the order dated 01.12.2023 passed by this Court.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the due to inadvertence, he could not take step for the paper publication of notice upon the O.P. No.2 and as such this Criminal Revision stood dismissed due to non-compliance of order dated 01.12.2023 passed by this Court. It is submitted that now the Informant has appeared and the case is likely to be compromised and as such this Criminal Revision No. 338 of 2017 may be restored.

¶16

Learned counsel for the APP raised no objection.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Informant No.2 submitted that he

¶18

will be appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 and he has no

¶19

¶20

2025:JHHC:11656

¶21

objection in this Criminal Revision No. 338 of 2017 which may be restored.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP and learned counsel for the informant and in view of the averments made in paragraph 7 to 9 of this Cr.M.P. No.268 of 2025, the prayer for restoration of Criminal Revision No.338 of 2017 is allowed and Criminal Revision No.338 of 2017 is restored to its original file.

¶23

Accordingly, this Cr.M.P No.268 of 2025 is allowed.

¶24

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶25

Nishant/-

¶26

Pradhan Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradhan Oraon 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

Nitesh Kumar Alias Tuntun Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akash Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Utkarsh Kumar Alias Utkarsh Kumar Ojha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gaurav Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gaurav Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Basuki Yadav Alias Basudeo Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand