Tilakdhari Mishra vs State of Bihar — 19/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 440. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th March 2026.

Cri. Rev App. - CRI. REVISION

CNR: BRBU100015732025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1395/2025

Filing Date

07-03-2025

Registration No

19/2025

Registration Date

07-03-2025

Court

DJ Div. Buxar

Judge

1-Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge

Decision Date

13th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

FIR Details

FIR Number

251

Police Station

DUMRAON

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 440

Petitioner(s)

Tilakdhari Mishra

Adv. Arun Kumar Rai

Rahul Mishra

Ram Ekbal Singh

Respondent(s)

State of Bihar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge

13-03-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

ORDER

12-02-2026

Hearing On Addmission

09-01-2026

Hearing On Addmission

01-12-2025

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

13-03-2026
Copy of order

Summary The Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by Tilakdhari Mishra, Rahul Mishra, and Ram Ekbal Singh against the Magistrate's order taking cognizance against them in a case involving alleged rioting, wrongful restraint, and criminal intimidation. The court held that the Magistrate acted within jurisdiction after reviewing available material, and citing Supreme Court precedent, found that cognizance orders should not be sparingly interfered with unless perverse or baseless, rejecting the petitioners' contention that the case was false and countersuit motivated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by Tilakdhari Mishra, Rahul Mishra, and Ram Ekbal Singh against the Magistrate's order taking cognizance against them in a case involving alleged rioting, wrongful restraint, and criminal intimidation. The court held that the Magistrate acted within jurisdiction after reviewing available material, and citing Supreme Court precedent, found that cognizance orders should not be sparingly interfered with unless perverse or baseless, rejecting the petitioners' contention that the case was false and countersuit motivated. 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. Buxar All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case