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
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
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
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
ORDER
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 01-04-2026 | ORDER | |
| 30-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 17-03-2026 | ORDER | |
| 12-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts