AKIL KHAN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — 262/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 163. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 10th April 2026.

Cr. Revision

CNR: BRBE010101712025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

19-11-2025

Filing Number

9187/2025

Filing Date

19-11-2025

Registration No

262/2025

Registration Date

19-11-2025

Court

DJ Div. Begusarai

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

10th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

FIR Details

FIR Number

1181

Police Station

Complaint

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 163

Petitioner(s)

AKIL KHAN AND OTHERS

Adv. MAZHARUL HAQUE

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

10-04-2026

Disposed

01-04-2026

ORDER

30-03-2026

HEARING

17-03-2026

ORDER

12-03-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

10-04-2026
Copy of Order

Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Begusarai set aside the SDM's order converting proceedings from Section 163 BNSS (preventive) to Section 164 BNSS (dispute resolution), finding the underlying dispute was purely civil regarding land title and inheritance. The court held that preventive jurisdiction requires real and imminent apprehension of breach of peace supported by tangible material; mere existence of a civil dispute and vague observations of "tension" are insufficient, and the SDM's order reflected non-application of judicial mind without recording mandatory satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Begusarai set aside the SDM's order converting proceedings from Section 163 BNSS (preventive) to Section 164 BNSS (dispute resolution), finding the underlying dispute was purely civil regarding land title and inheritance. The court held that preventive jurisdiction requires real and imminent apprehension of breach of peace supported by tangible material; mere existence of a civil dispute and vague observations of "tension" are insufficient, and the SDM's order reflected non-application of judicial mind without recording mandatory satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

DJ Div. Begusarai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case