MINAVA DEVI vs RAJESH YADAV AND 2 OTHERS — 61/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),76,352,3(5). Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

COMPLAINT CASE (DJ DIV)

CNR: BRJA010042852025

Filing Number

3864/2025

Filing Date

30-Jul-2025

Registration No

61/2025

Registration Date

30-Jul-2025

Court

DJ Div. Jamui

Judge

2-District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),76,352,3(5)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(1)(r),3(1)(s),3(2)(va),3(I)(h)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MINAVA DEVI

    Adv. SATISH PRASAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJESH YADAV AND 2 OTHERS

  2. 2.SHIV YADAV

  3. 3.BISHANU YADAV

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 61C/2025 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge rejected Minwa Devi's petition challenging the police's final report (FIR No. 21/2024) that found the charges baseless. The court found the petitioner's evidence insufficient and unreliable, concluding there was no credible testimony to establish that the accused committed any offense. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. Key Reasoning: The court noted significant inconsistencies in the petitioner's testimony—crucial details like alleged physical assault and immersion in dirty water were absent from both the petitioner's sworn statement and witness accounts. The two examining witnesses provided contradictory statements and failed to corroborate key allegations. The court determined there was insufficient reliable evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

  4. 24-Feb-2026

    Soleman Affirmation (S.a)

    District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

  5. 09-Feb-2026

    Soleman Affirmation (S.a)

    District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

  6. 07-Feb-2026

    Soleman Affirmation (S.a)

    District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

  7. 27-Jan-2026

    Soleman Affirmation (S.a)

    District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

  8. 13-Jan-2026

    Soleman Affirmation (S.a)

    District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

  9. 17-Dec-2025

    Soleman Affirmation (S.a)

    District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

  10. 01-Dec-2025

    Soleman Affirmation (S.a)

    District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

  11. 17-Nov-2025

    Soleman Affirmation (S.a)

    District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

  12. 31-Oct-2025

    Soleman Affirmation (S.a)

    District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

  13. 09-Oct-2025

    Soleman Affirmation (S.a)

    District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

  14. 17-Sep-2025

    Soleman Affirmation (S.a)

    District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

  15. 08-Sep-2025

    Soleman Affirmation (S.a)

    District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

  16. 02-Sep-2025

    Soleman Affirmation (S.a)

    District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

  17. 26-Aug-2025

    Soleman Affirmation (S.a)

    District And Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamui

  18. 18-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  19. 30-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 61/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 61C/2025 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge rejected Minwa Devi's petition challenging the police's final report (FIR No. 21/2024) that found the charges baseless. The court found the petitioner's evidence insufficient and unreliable, concluding there was no credible testimony to establish that the accused committed any offense. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. Key Reasoning: The court noted significant inconsistencies in the petitioner's testimony—crucial details like alleged physical assault and immersion in dirty water were absent from both the petitioner's sworn statement and witness accounts. The two examining witnesses provided contradictory statements and failed to corroborate key allegations. The court determined there was insufficient reliable evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case