PSI Chincholi PS vs A-1. VEERA REDDY SO RAMREDDY MADDA — 451/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 34,354C. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 26th March 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAKB420006252022
e-Filing Number
03-03-2022
Filing Number
451/2022
Filing Date
04-03-2022
Registration No
451/2022
Registration Date
04-03-2022
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINCHOLI
Judge
325-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,Chincholi
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
0120
Police Station
CHINCHOLI PS
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PSI Chincholi PS (Police Station)
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
A-1. VEERA REDDY SO RAMREDDY MADDA
A-2. GANGAREDDY SO VEERA REDDY MADDA
Hearing History
Judge: 325-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,Chincholi
Disposed
JUDGMENTS
JUDGMENTS
JUDGMENTS
JUDGMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS | |
| 10-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS | |
| 07-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS | |
| 28-02-2026 | JUDGMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted both accused of voyeurism charges under IPC Section 354(C). The judge found material contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies—particularly that the victim never testified to being watched with "evil intent"—and noted an underlying property dispute between the accused and the complainant's family. Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court held that open-air toilet use lacks reasonable privacy expectations, and thus the voyeurism offense did not apply. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court acquitted both accused of voyeurism charges under IPC Section 354(C). The judge found material contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies—particularly that the victim never testified to being watched with "evil intent"—and noted an underlying property dispute between the accused and the complainant's family. Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court held that open-air toilet use lacks reasonable privacy expectations, and thus the voyeurism offense did not apply. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts