Allowed¶17

Vikash Kumar Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Feb 2026Cr.M.P./3480/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of criminal miscellaneous petition dismissed for non-prosecution; Cr.M.P. No. 3291 of 2022 restored to original file at the pre-dismissal stage; dismissal attributed to counsel's non-appearance after the Advocate clerk failed to mark the case in the cause list; opposite party no. 2 (Shikha Mishra) absent despite valid service of notice; petitioner Vikash Kumar Mishra; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.; Order No.03 dated 13.02.2026; advocates Hemant Kr. Shikarwar and Rajesh Kumar (petitioner), P.D. Agrawal Addl. P.P. (State).

What did the court decide?

Cr.M.P. No. 3291 of 2022 restored to its original file to the stage at which it was before its dismissal, and to be listed under the appropriate heading before the appropriate bench after a week. ¶17

Vikash Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:4127 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 3480 of 2025

¶4

Vikash Kumar Mishra, aged about 38 years, son of Devi Lal Mishra, resident of Bokaro Sector-12, Qr. No. 12 (C), P.O. & P.S.-Sector-12, Dist.-Bokaro … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Shikha Mishra, daughter of Balram Kumar Mishra, resident of Sector-12, Qr. No. 2159, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.Sector-12 (C), Dist.-Bokaro, presently residing at VillageEthe, P.O. & P.S.-Murhu, Dist.-Khunti

¶8

… Opposite Parties

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None ------

¶11

Order No.03 Dated- 13.02.2026

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner for restoration of Cr.M.P. No. 3291 of 2022 to its original file.

¶14

Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Cr.M.P. No. 3291 of 2022 was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is next submitted that as due to inadvertence, the Advocate clerk of the counsel for the petitioner could not mark the case in the cause list and because of the same, the counsel for the petitioner could not appear before this Court when the case was called out, the same resulted in dismissal of Cr.M.P. No. 3291 of 2022. It is next submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said Cr.M.P. No. 3291 of 2022 and unless Cr.M.P. No. 3291 of 2022 is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly

¶16

prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that Cr.M.P. No. 3291 of 2022 be restored to its original file.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Cr.M.P. No. 3291 of 2022 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal.

¶18

List Cr.M.P. No. 3291 of 2022 under the appropriate heading before the appropriate bench after a week.

¶19

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶20

13.02.2026 Sonu/Gunjan-

Vikash Kumar Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Kumar Mishra 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

Gajendra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gyan Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samayun Basar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagdish Chandra Mahto Vs Ashutosh Mahto

Rajveer Bharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand