Petition seeking restoration of Cr.M.P. No. 35 of 2025, dismissed for non-compliance of a peremptory order requiring a deposit with JHALSA, which was allegedly not made due to non-communication of the order. The petitioner has since deposited the amount and the State raised no serious objection.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2026:JHHC:19531]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1409 of 2026
Dinanath Srivastava @ Dinanath, aged about 65 years, Son of Lallan Srivastava, Resident of Village- Achalpatti, P.O. – Kundwa, Urf. Dilipnagar, P.S.- Kasia, District- Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh.
… Petitioner
Versus
… The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party
-----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sharan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P. ------
Order No:-03 Dated:-03-07-2026
Heard the parties.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for restoration of Cr.M.P. No. 35 of 2025 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 25.11.2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Cr.M.P. No. 35 of 2025 was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 25.11.2025. It is next submitted that prayer for time was allowed to the petitioner subject to deposit of Rs.1,000/- by the petitioner with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within four weeks from the date of that order but due to non-communication of the order to the petitioner, the said deposit could not be made within the stipulated time; which resulted in dismissal for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 25.11.2025. Now the petitioner has made the said deposit; the copy of which has been annexed with this petition. It is further submitted that non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 25.11.2025 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said Cr.M.P. No. 35 of 2025 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the
petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the Cr.M.P. No. 35 of 2025 be restored to its original file.
Learned counsel for the State has not raised any serious objection to the prayer of the petitioner.
Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Cr.M.P. No. 35 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 Cr.M.P. No. 35 of 2025 before the appropriate Bench after a week.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Dated:- 03.07.2026 Saroj/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Cr.M.P. No. 35 of 2025, dismissed for non-compliance of a peremptory order, should be restored to its original file.
Dinanath Srivastava @ Dinanath
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
