Pranav Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pranav Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Restoration of W.P.(Cr.) No.48 of 2025 to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal, and listing before the concerned Bench after a week; the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether W.P.(Cr.) No.48 of 2025, which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 27.01.2025, should be restored to its original file.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the petitioner's submissions (non-compliance inadvertent, not deliberate or intentional, with valid grounds to agitate) and the absence of any serious objection from learned counsel for the State, W.P.(Cr.) No.48 of 2025 is directed to be restored to its original file at the same stage at which it stood before its dismissal.

Key takeaways

The Registry is directed to list W.P.(Cr.) No.48 of 2025 before the concerned Bench after a week.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand HC (Ranchi), single bench of Anil Kumar Choudhary, J., Order No.-03 dated 20-06-2025, Cr.M.P. No.501 of 2025 (petitioner Pranav Kumar; opposite parties: State of Jharkhand and Supriya Bharti): Administrative/miscellaneous order restoring a writ petition dismissed for procedural default. W.P.(Cr.) No.48 of 2025 had been dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 27.01.2025, whereby the petitioner was to file requisites for service of notice on respondent No.2 (registered post with A/D and ordinary process) within a week; the requisites were inadvertently not filed in time. Counsel submitted the lapse was neither deliberate nor intentional and that the petitioner had substantive grounds to agitate in the writ petition; learned counsel for the State raised no serious objection (¶16). The court directed restoration of W.P.(Cr.) No.48 of 2025 to its original file at the same stage as before dismissal (¶17), instructed the Registry to list it before the concerned Bench after a week (¶18), and disposed of the Cr.M.P. accordingly (¶19). No statutory provisions or precedent cases were cited; the order records no dissenting or concurring opinion.

[2025:JHHC:16374]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.501 of 2025

Pranav Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Maheshwari Poddar, resident of Village Tetrahi, Ward No. 10, P.O. Amaha, P.S. Pipra, District Supaul (Bihar)

… Petitioner Versus

The State of Jharkhand

Supriya Bharti, aged about 26 years, daughter of Pradeep Kumar Modi and wife of Pranav Kumar, at present resident of Village Jounka, P.O. Karma, P.S. Taljhari, District Dumka (Jharkhand) and permanent resident of Village Tetrahi, Ward No.10, P.O. Amaha, P.S. Pipra, District Supaul (Bihar).

… Opposite Parties

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

------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC IV Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC IV.

------

Order No:-03 Dated:-20-06-2025

Heard the parties.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for restoration of W.P.(Cr.) No.48 of 2025 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 27.01.2025.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that W.P.(Cr.) No.48 of 2025 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 27.01.2025. It is next submitted that the petitioner of W.P.(Cr.) No.48 of 2025 was directed to file requisites for service of notice upon the respondent No.2 in the matter of admission by registered post with A/D as well as under ordinary process within a week but inadvertently, the same could not be filed within the stipulated time; which resulted in dismissal for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 27.01.2025. It is next submitted that non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 27.01.2025 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said W.P.(Cr.) No.48 of 2025 and unless the same is restored to its original file,

the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the W.P.(Cr.) No.48 of 2025 be restored to its original file.

Learned counsel appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection.

Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, W.P.(Cr.) No.48 of 2025 is directed to be restored to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal.

Registry is directed to list W.P.(Cr.) No.48 of 2025 before the concerned Bench after a week.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

Saroj/