Sri Prateek Sihag

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, RangaReddy District at Kukatpally

Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court · Rangareddy · Telangana

Sri Prateek Sihag, I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, RangaReddy District at Kukatpally, is posted at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 209 court orders on record since 2023. 11 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, DVC cases.

209

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/9436/2022 Acquitted

State of Telangana through PS Chandanagar vs A Ermiya

15 Sep 2025

1of 8 C.C. 9436 of 2022(Fair)

IN THE COURT OF 1 ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

IX ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

Present:Sri. Prateek Sihag, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

MONDAY, THIS THE 15 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

CC No. 9436 of 2022

(Old C.C. 5959 of 2022)

Between:- The State of Telangana Through P.S. Chandanagar. (Cr. No. 791 of 2021) …Complainant AND

1. A. Ermiya S/o. Manmadha Rao Age: 22 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. H. No. 1-102/rc/34 beside Brundhavan Hotel, Hus Near Lingampally, 6th Platform, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Kumar, Age: 35 years, R/o. Borabanda(Absconding)

...Accused no.1

This case came before me on 10.09.2025 for final disposal in the presence of Ld. APPO for State and Shri. M.Akhilesh, Ld. Advocate for the Accused and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Chandanagar filed Charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 791 of 2021 for the offences U/Sec. 20(b)(ii), (A) NDPS Act 1985.

2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint received on14.10.2021 at 17:15 hours from Sri. N. Ramulu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandanagar in which he stated that on 14.10.2021 at 14:30 hours he made GD Entry and he along with his staff rushed in front of the Lingampally Railway station and at about 14:45 hours, apprehended one person by name

A. Ermiya S/o. Manmadha Rao who is selling Ganja Liquid. He secured the presence of two mediators i.e, 1. D. Praveen Kumar, 2. A. Kishor and seized 20 small boxes total containing about 170 grams of Ganja liquid under cover of Panchanama and seized the property total 2of 8 C.C. 9436 of 2022(Fair) worth about Rs. 10,000/-. Due to financial crisis at the house, he addicted to earn easy money by illegally selling Ganja Liquid to the needy customers. After completion of confessional and seizure panchanama brought the accused person along with seized property for taking necessary legal action.

3. In this regard a complaint was received and FIR in Crime No. 791 of 2021 for the offences U/Sec. 20(b)(ii), (A) NDPS Act 1985 was registered and investigated into. During course of investigation, the investigating officer examined and recorded statements of witnesses. From the evidence collected during investigation, it was made out that the

Accused was liable to be punished for the offences U/Sec. 20(b)(ii), (A) NDPS Act 1985 and charge sheet was accordingly filed.

4. This Court took cognizance for the offences U/Sec. 20(b)(ii), (A) NDPS Act 1985 against Accused. On appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. and the Accused was examined U/sec. 251 Cr.P.C and the accusations for offences U/Sec. 20(b)(ii), (A) NDPS Act 1985 were read over and explained to Accused in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, only PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex. P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. Accused was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witness, he denied the same but reported no evidence on his behalf.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7. The Point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 20(b)(ii)(A) NDPS Act 1985 beyond reasonable doubts”?

8. PW1/LW1 deposed before this Court that, he was working as St of Police, PS 3of 8 C.C. 9436 of 2022(Fair)

Chandanagar from January 2020 to February, 2022 and on 14.10.2021 at 14:30 Hours, on credible information he made GD Entry, informed superior officers and took permission and along with LW2 to LW4, he rushed to Lingampally Railway Station, Platform no.6. At about 14:45 hours they apprehended one person by name A. Ermiya S/o Manmadha Rao who was selling Ganja Oil. He secured the presence of LW6 and LW7 and recorded the Confession cum Seizure Panchanama and seized 20 Small Transparent Boxes with Ganja Oil and on weighing the Boxes with the help of LW5, each bottle was 8 Grams totaling 170 Grams. He seized the Narcotic substance with Panch Chits having witness signature and brought

Accused no.1 along with Seized material to Police Station and filed Complaint and handed the Accused and Seized Material to Inspector. Ex.P1 was marked as the Complaint and police examined and recorded his statement.

9. PW2/LW3 deposed before this Court that, he knows PW1, LW2, LW4. He worked as

Constable from 2018 to 2024 in Chandanagar PS. On 14.10.2021 he was on Blue Colt Duty with LW4 and then PWI called them at 02:15 Hours and asked them to come to Lingampally

Railway Station as he received information that one person is selling Ganja. They reached

Lingampally Railway Station, Platform no.6. They then apprehended one person by name A.

Ermiya who was having 20 Ganja liquid Bottles each bottle weighing 8 Grams as per the neighbour shop weight machine. PW1 then recorded the Confession cum Seizure

Panchanama and brought him to Police station and case was registered. His statement was recorded by Police.

10. PW3/LW6 deposed before this Court that, he know LW7. One of his friends died around 3 years back and as such he went to Chandanagar Police Station. When he went there, the Police caught one person at Lingampally Station and Ganja was seized from his possession and he along with LW7W and seizure panchanama in his presence and he signed 4of 8 C.C. 9436 of 2022(Fair) on it. Police also conducted CDF in his presence. Witness identified his signature on

Confession and Seizure Panchanama and on CDF. Ex.P2 was marked as the confession and seizure panchanama.

11. PW4/LW10 deposed before this Court that, , On 14.10.2021 at 17:15 hours complaint was filed and basing on the same, LW9 issued FIR in Cr.No. 791 of 2021 for offences u/s 20(b)(ii) (A) NDPS Act and file was entrusted to him for further investigation. Ex.P3 is the

FIR. He recorded the statement of LWI to LW4 and got weighed of contraband through

LW5. LWI recorded confession panchanama and he conducted CDF in the presence of LW6 and LW7. Ex.P4 is the CDF. Then he sent the contraband to FSL and obtained FSL Report.

Ex.P5 is the FSL. After completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet.

POINT:

12. The prosecution submitted a chargesheet listing 10 witnesses and PW1 to PW4 were examined before the Court. The Accused is alleged to have committed offence punishable

U/Sec. 20(b)(ii)(A) NDPS Act, 1985 as he was alleged to be found with 20 small boxes containing 170 Grams of Ganja Liquid.

13. However, a perusal of the record shows that the Accused was not furnished with

Section 50 NDPS Notice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijaysinh Jadeja vs State of

Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609 has held that:

“24. Although the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh case [(1999) 6 SCC 172 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1080] did not decide in absolute terms the question whether or not Section 50 of the NDPS Act was directory or mandatory yet it was held that provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 50 make it imperative for the empowered officer to “inform” the person concerned (suspect) about the existence of his right that if he so requires, he shall be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate; failure to “inform” the suspect about the existence of his said right would cause prejudice to him, and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused, where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession of the illicit article, recovered from the person during a search conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Court also noted that it was not necessary that the information required to be given under Section 50 5of 8 C.C. 9436 of 2022(Fair) should be in a prescribed form or in writing but it was mandatory that the suspect was made aware of the existence of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, if so required by him. We respectfully concur with these conclusions. Any other interpretation of the provision would make the valuable right conferred on the suspect illusory and a farce. 25……… 26……… 27……... 28………

29. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the object with which the right under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, by way of a safeguard, has been conferred on the suspect viz. to check the misuse of power, to avoid harm to innocent persons and to minimise the allegations of planting or foisting of false cases by the law enforcement agencies, it would be imperative on the part of the empowered officer to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a

Magistrate. We have no hesitation in holding that insofar as the obligation of

the authorised officer under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is mandatory and requires strict compliance. Failure to comply with the provision would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction if the same is recorded only on the basis of the recovery of the illicit article from the person of the accused during such search. Thereafter, the suspect may or may not choose to exercise the right provided to him under the said provision.”

14. Thus, in view of the above judgment, non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is fatal to the case of prosecution.

15. Further, the PW4 did not depos that he filed requisition for Inventory and there is no certificate by the Magistrate of any inventory conducted and no photographs are present on record. Thus, there is non-compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act as well and it is also fatal to the case of prosecution. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been insisting that compliance of Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is mandatory and the samples are to be drawn in the presence of the judicial magistrate.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and another 2016 (3) SCC 379, it

was observed as under:- “15. It is manifest from Section 52-A (2) (c) (supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken

before the Magistrate as true and (c) to draw representative samples in the

6of 8 C.C. 9436 of 2022(Fair) presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. 16. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police Station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty- bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. 17. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52-A (4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub- section (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure.”

16. In Simarnjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2023 SCC OnLine SC 906, Hon’ble the

Supreme Court while acquitting the accused relied upon Mohan Lal (supra) and held that mandate of Section 52-A of the Act was not complied with, and made the following observations in para No. 10 and 11:- “10. Hence, the act of PW-7 of drawing samples from all the packets at the time seizure is not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mohanlal. This creates a serious doubt about the prosecution’s case that substance recovered was a contraband.

11. Hence, the case of prosecution is not free from suspicion and the same has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgments insofar as the present appellant is concerned and quash his conviction and sentence.”

17. Further, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Mangilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023

SCC OnLine 862, while acquitting the accused, has observed that mandate of Section 52-A of the Act has to be complied with by observing that:-.

“8. Before any proposed disposal/destruction mandate of Section 52A of the NPDS Act requires to be duly complied with starting with an application to that effect. A Court should be satisfied with such compliance while deciding the case. The onus is entirely on the prosecution in a given case to satisfy the Court when such an issue arises for consideration. Production of seized material is a factor to establish seizure followed by recovery. One has to remember that the provisions of the NDPS Act are both stringent and rigorous and therefore the burden heavily lies on the prosecution. Non-production of 7of 8 C.C. 9436 of 2022(Fair) physical evidence would lead to a negative inference within the meaning of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Evidence Act). The procedure contemplated through the notification has an element of fair play such as the deposit of the seal, numbering the containers in seriatimwise and keeping them in lots preceded by compliance of the procedure for drawing samples.”

18. Rule 9 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage,

Sampling And Disposal) Rules, 2022, also requires that the samples are to be drawn as contemplated under Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

19. In view of the above, I am of the clear opinion that noncompliance of Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act in this case is fatal to the case of prosecution and as such, the Ex.P5 i.e. the

FSL Report is also of no significance. Prosecution has failed to establish the compliance of

Section 50, 52 and 52(A) of the NDPS Act. Further in view of the judgments referred to above, non-compliance of the above provisions itself is a ground for acquittal. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the accused is entitled to acquittal.

20. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.

20(b)(ii)(A) NDPS Act, 1985 and he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The Accused is set at liberty and his bonds and bail bonds shall remain in force till six months from today U/S 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property deposited vide CPR 77 of 2022 is ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time, as per law.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, on computer corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 15 th of September, 2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Jr. Civil Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally.

8of 8 C.C. 9436 of 2022(Fair)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: -Nil-

PW1: N. Ramulu

PW2: Ravinder

PW3: D. Praveen

PW4: B. Venkatesh

EXHIBITS MARKED:

Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the Complaint given by LW1.

Ex.P2 is marked as the confession and seizure panchanama.

Ex.P3 is the FIR.

Ex.P4 is the CDF.

Ex.P5 is the FSL.

Defence: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

Prosecution: Nil Defence: Nil.

Sd/-

I Addl. Jr. Civil Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally.

CC/7161/2022 Acquitted

State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs R. Venkat Rao

01 Sep 2025

1 of 5

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair)

IN THE COURT OF 1 st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

IX ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

Present:Sri. Prateek Sihag, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

MONDAY, THIS THE 1 st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

CC No. 7161 of 2022

(Old C.C. 1701 of 2018)

Between:- The State of Telangana Through P.S. Chandanagar. (Cr. No. 226 of 2017) …Complainant AND Rayapati Venkat Rao S/o. Late Chalapathi Rao, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Seventh Lane, Brindavan Gardens, Guntur Town, Guntur.

...Accused

This case came before me on 29.08.2025 for final disposal in the presence of Ld. APPO for State and Shri. A. Narasimha, Ld. Advocate for the Accused and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Detective-Inspector of Police, P.S. Chandanagar filed Charge sheet against the

Accused in Crime No. 226 of 2017 for the offences U/Sec. 454,380 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint received from Loka Venkateswarlu

S/o. Narahari in which he stated that on 29.03.2017 at about 17:00 hours he along with his family members went to temple by locking his main door and at about 19:00 hours when they return to house he noticed that his house main door lock hook was broken and opened. When he checked his almarah he found that 6 gold bangles, one gold necklace, one long chain, ear tops-6 pairs, Maties-2 sets, Jada billalu-2 nos., one locket, finger rings-5 nos, nose stud one, one small chain with locket, Laxmi rupee-3 nos, one gram gold doller, cash about Rs. 6,000/-, silver articles ½ kg and one Toshiba Laptop which was kept in another room were missing which were stolen by some person and hence requested to take necessary action against the accused person.

2 of 5

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair)

3. In this regard a complaint was received and FIR in Crime No. 226 of 2017 for the offences U/Sec. 454,380 IPC was registered and investigated into. During course of investigation, the investigating officer examined and recorded statements of witnesses. From the evidence collected during investigation, it was made out that the Accused was liable to be punished for the offences U/Sec. 457,380 IPC and Chargesheet was accordingly filed.

4. This Court took cognizance for the offences U/Sec. 457,380 IPC against Accused. On appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/sec. 207

Cr.P.C. and the Accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C and the charges for offences

U/Sec. 457,380 IPC were framed and read over and explained to Accused in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, only PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex. P1 to Ex.P3 and

MO1 were marked. Accused was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witness, he denied the same but reported no evidence on his behalf.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7. The Point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC beyond reasonable doubts”?

8. PW1/LW1 deposed before this Court that, LW2/Sukanya is his wife. LW3/Sukesh

Krishna Chaitanya is his son. On 29.03.2017, they went to temple by locking their house. At about 7.00 p.m, they returned to their house and found that the lock was broke opened. They found that unknown offenders committed theft of gold ornaments viz., gold chains, bangles, ear studs of 250 grams, laptop and silver articles of ½ Kg etc and he lodged report with the \\ police which was marked as Ex.P1. He took interim custody of gold bangles, necklace, ear studs, gold locket, ring, laptop and ½ Kg silver items from the Court and he was examined by the police. The gold ornaments, on production by the witness before the Court were marked as M.O.1.

3 of 5

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair)

9. PW2/LW5 deposed before this Court that PW1 is his father-in-law. On 29.03.2017, he came to Chandanagar to the house of P.W.1. At about 5.00 p.m, on that day, all family members went to temple by locking the house. At about 6.30 p.m or 7.00 p.m, they returned to their house and found that the door of the house was broke open and unknown offenders committed theft of gold, laptop and silver items in the house. PW1 lodged report with the police. He was examined by the police.

10. PW3/LW8 deposed before this Court that, he knows LW7/M.Eshwar Reddy. On 29.03.2017, the police Chandanagar summoned him and LW7 to flat No. 203, Sai Keerthi

Heights, Shilpa Enclave, Friends Colony, at about 9.00 p.m. The police conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn the rough sketch of the scene in their presence with respect to theft of gold ornaments, silver items and laptop in flat No.203. He and LW7 signed on the scene of offence panchanama and on the rough sketch of the scene. Witness identified his signatures on the scene of offence panchanama and on the rough sketch of the scene. The said signatures are marked as Ex.P2 and P3.

POINT:

11. A perusal of the depositions of PW1 to PW3 and the documents marked as Ex.P1 to

Ex.P3 show that the prosecution witnesses have spoken about the occurrence of theft in the house of PW1. The property recovered was marked as MO1 and interim custody was given to

PW1. However, none of the witnesses examined have spoken specifically about the involvement of the accused in the said crime. There is no direct evidence placed on record to connect the accused to the crime. The prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses who could establish the accused’s role. Further, the crucial witnesses such as LW9 and LW10 who were panch witness to recovery and the Investigating Officer have not been examined before this Court despite granting several chances and the same creates a significant gap in the chain of circumstances. It is well settled principle of criminal law that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

4 of 5

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair) Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot substitute proof. In the present case, while it is proved that theft took place in the house of PW1, there is no reliable evidence to conclude that it was the accused who committed the offence and the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of stolen articles from the accused through cogent evidence. The panchanama witnesses and the Investigating Officer not being examined is fatal to the case of the prosecution. In the absence of credible, trustworthy, and corroborative evidence against the accused, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC against the Accused.

12. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 457, 380

IPC and he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The Accused is set at liberty and his bonds and bail bonds shall remain in force till six months from today U/S 437-A Cr.P.C. The interim custody of M.O.1 already granted to PW1 vide orders in Crl.M.P 4073 of 2017 and the said order is made absolute.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, on computer corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on this the 1 st day of September, 2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Jr. Civil Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence: -Nil- PW1: L. Venkateshwarlu PW2: T. Sai Kiran PW3: A. Laxmi Kishore EXHIBITS MARKED: Prosecution: Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is the signature of LW8 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3 is the signature of LW8 on rough sketch 5 of 5

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair) Defence: -Nil- MATERIAL OBJECTS: Prosecution: MO1 are the gold ornaments.

Defence: Nil.

Sd/-

I Addl. Jr. Civil Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally.

CC/7161/2022 Acquitted

State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs R. Venkat Rao

01 Sep 2025

1 of 5

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair)

IN THE COURT OF 1 st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

IX ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

Present:Sri. Prateek Sihag, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

MONDAY, THIS THE 1 st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

CC No. 7161 of 2022

(Old C.C. 1701 of 2018)

...Accused

J U D G M E N T

1. The Detective-Inspector of Police, P.S. Chandanagar filed Charge sheet against the

Accused in Crime No. 226 of 2017 for the offences U/Sec. 454,380 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint received from Loka Venkateswarlu

2 of 5

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair)

4. This Court took cognizance for the offences U/Sec. 457,380 IPC against Accused. On appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/sec. 207

Cr.P.C. and the Accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C and the charges for offences

U/Sec. 457,380 IPC were framed and read over and explained to Accused in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, only PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex. P1 to Ex.P3 and

6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7. The Point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC beyond reasonable doubts”?

8. PW1/LW1 deposed before this Court that, LW2/Sukanya is his wife. LW3/Sukesh

3 of 5

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair)

10. PW3/LW8 deposed before this Court that, he knows LW7/M.Eshwar Reddy. On 29.03.2017, the police Chandanagar summoned him and LW7 to flat No. 203, Sai Keerthi

POINT:

11. A perusal of the depositions of PW1 to PW3 and the documents marked as Ex.P1 to

Ex.P3 show that the prosecution witnesses have spoken about the occurrence of theft in the house of PW1. The property recovered was marked as MO1 and interim custody was given to

4 of 5

12. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 457, 380

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, on computer corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on this the 1 st day of September, 2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Jr. Civil Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair) Defence: -Nil- MATERIAL OBJECTS: Prosecution: MO1 are the gold ornaments.

Defence: Nil.

Sd/-

I Addl. Jr. Civil Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally.

CC/7161/2022 Acquitted

State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs R. Venkat Rao

01 Sep 2025

1 of 5

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair)

IN THE COURT OF 1 st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

IX ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

Present:Sri. Prateek Sihag, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

MONDAY, THIS THE 1 st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

CC No. 7161 of 2022

(Old C.C. 1701 of 2018)

...Accused

J U D G M E N T

1. The Detective-Inspector of Police, P.S. Chandanagar filed Charge sheet against the

Accused in Crime No. 226 of 2017 for the offences U/Sec. 454,380 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint received from Loka Venkateswarlu

2 of 5

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair)

4. This Court took cognizance for the offences U/Sec. 457,380 IPC against Accused. On appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/sec. 207

Cr.P.C. and the Accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C and the charges for offences

U/Sec. 457,380 IPC were framed and read over and explained to Accused in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, only PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex. P1 to Ex.P3 and

6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7. The Point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC beyond reasonable doubts”?

8. PW1/LW1 deposed before this Court that, LW2/Sukanya is his wife. LW3/Sukesh

3 of 5

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair)

10. PW3/LW8 deposed before this Court that, he knows LW7/M.Eshwar Reddy. On 29.03.2017, the police Chandanagar summoned him and LW7 to flat No. 203, Sai Keerthi

POINT:

11. A perusal of the depositions of PW1 to PW3 and the documents marked as Ex.P1 to

Ex.P3 show that the prosecution witnesses have spoken about the occurrence of theft in the house of PW1. The property recovered was marked as MO1 and interim custody was given to

4 of 5

12. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 457, 380

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, on computer corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on this the 1 st day of September, 2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Jr. Civil Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair) Defence: -Nil- MATERIAL OBJECTS: Prosecution: MO1 are the gold ornaments.

Defence: Nil.

Sd/-

I Addl. Jr. Civil Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally.

CC/7161/2022 Acquitted

State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs R. Venkat Rao

01 Sep 2025

1 of 5

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair)

IN THE COURT OF 1 st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

IX ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

Present:Sri. Prateek Sihag, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

MONDAY, THIS THE 1 st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

CC No. 7161 of 2022

(Old C.C. 1701 of 2018)

...Accused

J U D G M E N T

1. The Detective-Inspector of Police, P.S. Chandanagar filed Charge sheet against the

Accused in Crime No. 226 of 2017 for the offences U/Sec. 454,380 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint received from Loka Venkateswarlu

2 of 5

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair)

4. This Court took cognizance for the offences U/Sec. 457,380 IPC against Accused. On appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/sec. 207

Cr.P.C. and the Accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C and the charges for offences

U/Sec. 457,380 IPC were framed and read over and explained to Accused in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, only PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex. P1 to Ex.P3 and

6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7. The Point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC beyond reasonable doubts”?

8. PW1/LW1 deposed before this Court that, LW2/Sukanya is his wife. LW3/Sukesh

3 of 5

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair)

10. PW3/LW8 deposed before this Court that, he knows LW7/M.Eshwar Reddy. On 29.03.2017, the police Chandanagar summoned him and LW7 to flat No. 203, Sai Keerthi

POINT:

11. A perusal of the depositions of PW1 to PW3 and the documents marked as Ex.P1 to

Ex.P3 show that the prosecution witnesses have spoken about the occurrence of theft in the house of PW1. The property recovered was marked as MO1 and interim custody was given to

4 of 5

12. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 457, 380

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, on computer corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on this the 1 st day of September, 2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Jr. Civil Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

C.C.7161 of 2022(Fair) Defence: -Nil- MATERIAL OBJECTS: Prosecution: MO1 are the gold ornaments.

Defence: Nil.

Sd/-

I Addl. Jr. Civil Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally.

Order Record 198 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/9436/2022	State of Telangana through PS Chandanagar vs A Ermiya	15 Sep 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/7161/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs R. Venkat Rao	01 Sep 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CC.NI/242/2023	Sri.Borugadda Premsingh vs M/s.Expert Security Services and other	04 Aug 2025	Judgement	—
CC/6890/2022	State of Telangana Through PS CHANDA NAGAR vs RATNAVATH SANJU NAYAK	08 Jul 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1154/2024	Vaddepally Vijaya and 3 others vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal and all concerned	01 Jul 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1137/2022	SVBVS Murthy vs G. Mani Prasad	30 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1141/2022	Majeti Padma Srinivas vs G. mani Prasad	30 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
CC/8907/2022	Santhosh Kumar Bhosie vs Sardar Paramjeet Singh	27 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
CC/9692/2022	State of Telangana Through ps chandanagar vs Vsk.gokula singh	27 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1249/2022	Smt.Sultana Begum vs Smt.Jyothi Agarwal	26 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
CC/9509/2022	State of Telangana Through PS chandanagar vs Bandi Chinna Rao	26 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
CC/6843/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs BOYAPALLI MAHESH	25 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
CC/8044/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs A2.Md. Yonous	24 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
CC/6786/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs P. Srinivas @ Bichapolla Srinivas	23 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
CC/8849/2022	Smt.Sarika Surineni vs Surisetty Narsarao	20 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
CC/6817/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs N. Sahani	17 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
CC/6983/2022	State of Telangana Through PS CHANDANAGAR vs P. Sujatha	17 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
CC/7968/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs G. Mohan Goud	16 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
CC/8593/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs Pasula Praveen Reddy	16 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
CC/7960/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs Mohammed Khaled	13 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1072/2022	Mahinder Singh Mahlotra vs Sagar Hedge	12 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
CC/9342/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs Mohammed Azgar@ Afsar	11 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
CC/6369/2022	State of Telangana Through WPS GACHIBOWLI vs Devarshi Ajay Thakkar	06 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1608/2022	Chalapalli Chinna Pulla Reddy vs Adhikarapu Rambabu	01 May 2025	Judgement	—
CC/7152/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs KALPARTHY NAGENDRA SURYA PRASAD AND OTHERS	30 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/8845/2022	Mrs.Shweti Prabhu vs Abdul Majid	29 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1217/2022	C.Govind Singh vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation	28 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/6392/2022	State of Telangana Through wps gachibowli vs P.Pradeep.	28 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/441/2024	Smt. Vijaya Laxmi Nukala vs The Tahsildar, Serilingampally	27 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1030/2022	icici bank ltd represented by its debt manager murali mulagalapathi vs Vsmogula rajendra reddy	26 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1060/2022	icici bank ltd rep by its m mulagalapathi vs Vshitesh anumula	26 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1063/2022	icici bank ltd rep by its m murali vs Vsabhiram reddy mandala	26 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1065/2022	icici bank ltd rep by its m murali vs Vssaidul alom mozumder	26 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/305/2024	Pallapotu Prameela Rani and 3 others vs The Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal and all concerned.	25 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/8869/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs Mohammed Kurshid Miya	25 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/9284/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs Vishnu Anand Kumar	25 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1459/2022	N Venkata Ratnam vs GHMC	24 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/9018/2022	Sri.V.Chaitanya vs Andapalli Sunil Kumar	12 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/893/2022	V.Janardhan Sunil Kumar vs Patancheru Yad kumar	11 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/8006/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs P. Mahesh	04 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/9477/2022	State of Telangana through PS Chandanagar vs Enjamuri Srinivas and 5 others	04 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC.NI/153/2023	R.Anil Kumar vs D.Nagaraju	03 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/896/2024	Kosuri Raghu Kumar and 2 others vs The MRO, Serilingampally Mandal and another	28 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/7221/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs Bura Srikanth	28 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/8928/2022	G.Karthik Reddy vs Y.Hari Babu	25 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/9406/2022	State of Telangana through PS Chandanagar vs Banoth Ramesh	25 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/8191/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs Md Khaja	20 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/7143/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs BACHU ANJAIAH	19 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1086/2022	Santosh Reddy vs G.Santhosh Reddy	18 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1275/2022	K.Neela Mohan Rao vs E.Sambaiah	18 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/7000/2022	State of Telangana Through PS CHANDA NAGAR vs KAJIPALLY VENKATESH	17 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/7177/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs Ananchal Guptha	17 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/6636/2022	State of Telangana Through WPS GACHIBOWLI vs Golisaikoti Vali Prabhu	04 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
DVC/6/2024	Smt.Pichakuntla Kavya Sri vs P.Shekar	04 Feb 2025	Order	—
DVC/29/2023	Smt.Anusha Gopu and other vs Gopu Venkatesh and others	04 Feb 2025	Order	—
CC/8542/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs J. Sandeep Kumar	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
CC/9330/2022	PS. Chandanagar vs V. Marukondaiah	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
CC/6907/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs Poosala Veera Kumar Goud	28 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/178/2024	Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd Rep by Alapati Nageshwar Rao vs Agri Chemicals and anothers	27 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/181/2024	Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd Rep by Alapati Nageshwar Rao vs Sree Balaji Seeds And Pesticides and another	27 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/186/2024	Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd Rep by Alapati Nageshwar Rao vs Sri Chamundeswari Pesticides and another	27 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1077/2022	Andhra Bank vs M/s. Gracia Jute Creation	24 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/538/2024	Pragya Vikas Shahani and another vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally and all concerned	23 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1470/2022	Smt.Ch.Sree Devi - died on 5.04.2020 vs Smt.Lali Bai	23 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/57/2023	Pallavi Vijayta Das and 1 another vs The MRO Serilingampally Mandal	22 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/167/2024	Himabindu Pillarisetty and 4 others vs Tahsildar, Serilingampally	21 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
CC/8840/2022	Sri. Kethan Shah vs Abdul Majid	20 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
CC/8842/2022	Md. Shahab Khan vs Abdul Majid	20 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2397/2024	State of Telangana Through WPS-Gachibowli vs Satyanarayana Cheeli	10 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/149/2024	Kanamet Mallesh and 2 others vs Kanamet Kumar and 2 others	09 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1149/2024	Samitasood and another vs The Tahsildar, Serilingampally mandal and all concerned	07 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1219/2022	V.Srinivas vs M/s.Sri Sai Surya Timber and Saw Mill	02 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
CC/6462/2022	State of Telangana Through WPS GACHIBOWLI vs Sayeed Bin Mohammed Badawi	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/7151/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs BASETTI ASHOK AND OTHERS	30 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/7962/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs K. Chandrashekar Yadav	30 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/368/2024	Nirupama and 2 others vs The Tahsildar, Serilingampally and all concerned	27 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/113/2024	Haridas Kumaran vs Gummadi Rama Swamy Chowdary	24 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/558/2023	UCO Bank Gachibowli Rep by Senior Manager vs CIRRUS Marketing Service Rep by I Srinivasa Reddy	24 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/500/2024	State of Telangana Through Chandanagar vs Hanumanthu Jeripeti	24 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/9281/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs Pedda Patlolla Surya Prakash Reddy	24 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/8003/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs Ch. Narsimlu @ Pancture Narsimlu	23 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/9318/2022	PS Chandanagar vs Ch. Natsimlu @ Puncture Narsimlu	23 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/448/2024	Y. Ramadevi and another vs The Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal and 2 others	17 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/693/2023	State Bank of India Rep by CH Sowjanya vs Raghu Varapu Bhanu Kiran	17 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/694/2023	State Bank Of India Rep by CH Sowjanya vs Nalla Rama Lingeshwar Rao	17 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/117/2024	Puchakayala Indira and 2 Others vs The Tahasildhar Serilingampally Mandal and all Concerned	16 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/1131/2022	Canara Bank vs Abhi Subramanyam	16 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/3074/2024	State of Telangana Through PSWPS Gachibowli vs Sheshank Sanam	16 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/8004/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs R. Sairam Goud and two others	13 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/363/2024	Cilamkoti Venkat Srinivas and 3 others vs The Tahsildar, Serilingampally mandal and all concerned	11 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/967/2023	Nehatha Nirupa Kumari and others vs The Tahsildar, SErilingampally and another	10 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/7235/2022	State of Telangana Through PS chandanagar vs D SaiKumar	10 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/306/2024	Poornima Rao and 2 others vs The Tahsildar, Serilingampally mandal and all concerned.	09 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/1367/2022	Smt.G.Padma Narayan Reddy vs J.Krishna	09 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/7215/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs Desagiri Govardhan Reddy	09 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/821/2023	Sushmita Rep by GPA Sri Bharath Bhushan Reddy vs Sri Erugu Venkatashwarlu	03 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/261/2023	State of Telangana Through ps chanda nagar vs MUDAVAT RAVI	03 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/1786/2024	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs A2-A.Lokesh	03 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/6800/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs K. Narasimha Reddy	28 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
CC/8010/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Chandanagar vs S. Tagore	27 Nov 2024	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 198 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Sep 2025		11
Aug 2025		1
Jul 2025		2
Jun 2025		18
May 2025		1
Apr 2025		2
Mar 2025		17
Feb 2025		13
Jan 2025		17
Dec 2024		26
Nov 2024		17
Aug 2024		1

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri Prateek Sihag handled?

Sri Prateek Sihag has handled 209 court orders since 2023 at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court. The average disposal rate is 7 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri Prateek Sihag hear?

Based on available records, Sri Prateek Sihag primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court.

Where is Sri Prateek Sihag currently posted?

Sri Prateek Sihag is posted as I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, RangaReddy District at Kukatpally at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court, Rangareddy, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri Prateek Sihag available online?

Yes. 11 judgments by Sri Prateek Sihag are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri Prateek Sihag dispose cases?

Sri Prateek Sihag disposes approximately 7 cases per month, based on 209 orders handled over their tenure at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court.

Since when is Sri Prateek Sihag serving?

Sri Prateek Sihag has been serving at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court since 2023.

Case Types

CC 59%

OS 39%

DVC 2%

Posting History

Sep 2023 — Apr 2026

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, RangaReddy District at Kukatpally · 209 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 11

Other Judges at this Court

Sri D. Ram Prasada Rao

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRe...

1 orders

J Syam Kumar

Senior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Chief Judicial...

36 orders

Mr. Shridhar Mandhani

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl. Judic...

0 orders

Ms. Kavya Jada

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Addl. Judic...

0 orders

← View all judges at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court