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
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
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
Disposed
ORDER
Hearing On Addmission
Hearing On Addmission
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts