Currently Serving

Mr. Banothu Sri Ram

Junior Civil JudgeCheriyal

Cherial, JCJ Court Complex · Siddipet · Telangana

Mr. BANOTHU SRI RAM, Junior Civil JudgeCheriyal, is posted at Cherial, JCJ Court Complex, Siddipet, Telangana, India. 33 court orders on record since 2026. 3 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles STC, OS, CC cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/818/2025 Acquitted

PS MADDUR vs CHOPPARY MAHINDER

08 May 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT CHERIAL

Present: - Sri. Banothu Sriram.

Judicial Magistrate of First class, At Cherial

Friday, this the 08th day of May, 2026.

CC No. 818 of 2025

Old CC. No. 452 of 2023

Between:

The State of Telangana through SHO of PS. Maddur …Complainant AND

1.Choppari Mahender S/o. Ramaiah, Aged 27 years, R/o. Thornala.

2.Gonepally Raju (Absconding)

...Accused Nos.1 & 2.

Offence under I.P.C:Under Sections 504 IPC, sec. 67 of IT Act

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty Nos.1 & 2.

Finding of the Court: Found Not Guilty.

Sentence of Order:In the result, the accused Nos.1 found not guilty for the offence Under Sections 504 IPC, sec. 67 of IT Act. and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L. Thirupathi, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for accused persons upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Maddur Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.25 of 2021 alleging that accused persons have committed the offence as punishable under Sections 504 IPC, sec. 67 of IT Act

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28-02-2021 at 1300 hours

PW1 lodged a report with LW9 in which his stated that he is the President of

Thornala Village for TRS party, he is the member of “THORNALA ANIMUTHYALU”

WhatsApp Group. In the said WhatsApp Group, on 27-02-2021 at about 2130 hours, his villager Choppari Mahender S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. Thornala Village uploaded a postage against Sri. Muthireddy Yadagiri Reddy Hon’ble MLA with indecent words such as “MUTHIREDDY GANI NOTLO SULLI PETTURRRI. NENU

PEDA, EE THORNALA GROUP LO VUNNA MEEKU EVARIKAINA GUDDALA

DAMMUNTE NAA DAGGARIKI RANDI” etc. The said Postage was viral in the

Social media WhatsApp groups, whereas the words are proactive to the TRS activists and hatred between the groups and may create conflicts. Hence requested for taking necessary action as per law.

3.In these regard the complaint was received by Sri K. Srinivas, Head

Constable , Maddur in Crime No.25 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 504

IPC, sec. 67 of IT Act. were registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined and recorded statements of witnesses from the evidence collected during the course of investigation, it is made out that the accused persons are liable to be punished for the offence under Sections 504 IPC and 67 IT Act 2008. and charge sheet was accordingly filed.

4. This Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 504 IPC 67 IT Act. against accused persons. On appearance of accused persons copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 were furnished to them and they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for which they denied the offence. Charges are framed under

Sections504 IPC 67 IT Act. wereread over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove guilt of the accused persons, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P7. The accused persons neither examined anyone nor got marked any documents on their behalf.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, no incriminating evidence appeared against accused persons, as such, examination under section 313,

Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7. Heard learned both counsels and perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has brought home guilt of accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 504 IPC 67 IT Act. beyond reasonable doubt?

9. Point: During the trial, the prosecution out of 13 witnesses, prosecution examined only PW1 to PW7 got Exs.P1 to Ex.P7 are marked through them, PW1 to PW7 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution nothing could be elicited by APPO during his cross examinations.

10. On careful perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed anything against the accused persons. The evidence of PW1 to PW7 will not help the prosecution case in any manner as they did not depose anything reliable to connect that accused persons with the

Offence. PW1 to PW7 did not support the case of the prosecution and in their chief examination stated that they did not know facts of alleged offence and

Police never examined him nor recorded his statement and they were treated hostile, elicited nothing from mouth of PW1 to PW7 to substantiate case of the prosecution except marking of their portion of under section 161, Cr.P.C.

Statement and signature of complaint on report. Absolutely, there is no material to connect the accused persons with the case. Thus, the prosecution could not prove the charges against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 504 IPC 67 IT Act.

11. For the reasons stated above, accused persons are given benefit of doubt the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused persons. So, considering the discussion made above in the absence of material and cogent evidence on record this court is of consider view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts.

12.In the result, the accused Nos.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 504 IPC 67 IT Act. and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 08 th day of May, 2026.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHERIAL.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1 : Gonepally Mallesham None

PW-2: Thallapally Bikshapathi

PW-3 : Pulluri Suresh

PW-4: Choppari Anil Kumar

PW-5: Choppari Komurelli

PW-6: T. Balaiah

PW-7: S. Parushaiah

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: signature on report of PW1.

Ex.P2: Before the police

Ex.P3: Before the police

Ex.P4: Before the police

Ex.P5: Signature of PW5

Ex. P6: Signature of PW6 on seizure panchanama

Ex.P7: Signature of PW7 on seizure panchanama.

For Defence:

-Nil- Material Objects Marked -Nil-

JFCM.

CC/261/2025 Acquitted

PS. Cherial vs Peddutla Mahender Reddy Alias Pothuraju

12 May 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT CHERIAL

Present: - Sri. Banothu Sriram.

Judicial Magistrate of First class, At Cherial

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

CC No. 261 of 2025

Old CC. No. 36 of 2017

Between:

The State of Telangana through SHO of PS. Cherial …Complainant AND

1.Peddutla Mahender Reddy @ Pothuraju S/o. Kanakareddy, Aged 27 years, R/o. Pothireddypally.

2.Garnepally Naresh S/o. Ramulu, Aged 20 years, R/o. Pothireddypally.

3. Poreddy Buchaiah S/o. Ashok, Aged 21 years, R/o. Pothireddypally

4. Poreddy Bhaskar S/o. Narsaiah, Aged 25 years, R/o. Pothireddypally

...Accused Nos.1 to 4.

Offence under I.P.C:Under Sections 452, 354, 290, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty Nos.1 & 2.

Finding of the Court: Found Not Guilty.

Sentence of Order:In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 found not guilty for the offence Under Sections 452, 354, 290, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L. Thirupathi, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri T. Praneeth, learned counsel for accused persons upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Cherial Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.170 of 2016 alleging that accused persons have committed the offence as punishable under Sections 452, 354, 290, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34

IPC

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03-10-2016 at 1900 hours

PW1 lodged a report with LW12 in which his stated that on 24-12-2016 his younger brother marriage solemnized at Kalyan Function hall cherial A2 also attend the said marriage and making gestures against the LW2 upon which

LW3 admonished him keeping it mind A1 to A4 came to his house on 02-10- 2016 at 11.30 pm and started abused them in filthy language and beat them with hands and also threatened with dire consequences by holding his short collar dragged him. The said incident witnessed by the LW2 to LW7. Hence requested for taking necessary action as per law.

3.In these regard the complaint was received by Sri Md. Majed

Head Constable, Cherial in Crime No. 170 of 2016 for the offence under

Sections 452, 354, 290, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC. were registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined and recorded statements of witnesses from the evidence collected during the course of investigation, it is made out that the accused persons are liable to be punished for the offence under Sections 452, 354, 290, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC. and charge sheet was accordingly filed.

4. This Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354, 290, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC. against accused persons. On appearance of accused persons copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were furnished to them and they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for which they denied the offence.

Charges are framed under Sections 452, 354, 290, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC.

wereread over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove guilt of the accused persons, prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P3. The accused persons neither examined anyone nor got marked any documents on their behalf.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, no incriminating evidence appeared against accused persons, as such, examination under section 313,

Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7. Heard learned both counsels and perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has brought home guilt of accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 504 IPC 67 IT Act. beyond reasonable doubt?

9. Point: During the trial, the prosecution out of 13 witnesses, prosecution examined only PW1 and PW2 got Exs.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked through they, PW1 and PW2 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution nothing could be elicited by APPO during his cross examinations.

10. On careful perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed anything against the accused persons. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 will not help the prosecution case in any manner as they did not depose anything reliable to connect that accused persons with the

Offence. PW1 and PW2 did not support the case of the prosecution and in their chief examination stated that they did not know facts of alleged offence and

Police never examined him nor recorded his statement and they were treated hostile, elicited nothing from mouth of PW1 and PW2 to substantiate case of the prosecution except marking of their portion of under section 161, Cr.P.C.

Sections 452, 354, 290, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC.

12.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354, 290, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC. and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHERIAL.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1 : Md. Ayub None

PW-2: Firdous Banu

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: -Nil-

Ex.P1: Police did not examined me and recorded my statement

Ex.P2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statemetn of PW2

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHERIAL.

CC/959/2025 Acquitted

PS. Cherial vs Anumula Rajashekar

12 May 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT CHERIAL

Present: - Sri. Banothu Sriram.

Judicial Magistrate of First class, At Cherial

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

CC No. 959 of 2025

Old CC. No. 1265 of 2022

Between:

The State of Telangana through SHO of PS. Cherial …Complainant AND

1.Anumula Rajashekar S/o. Yellareddy, Aged 32 years, R/o. Akunoor.

2.Kommu Ravi S/o. Sambaiah, Aged 44 years, R/o. Akunoor.

...Accused Nos.1 & 2.

Offence under I.P.C:Under Sections 504 IPC, Sec. 67 IT Act 2000-2008

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty Nos.1 & 2.

Finding of the Court: Found Not Guilty.

Sentence of Order:In the result, the accused Nos.1 & 2 found not guilty for the offence Under Sections 504 IPC, Sec. 67 IT Act 2000-2008 and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L. Thirupathi, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri N. Santhosh, learned counsel for accused persons upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Cherial Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.35 of 2022 alleging that accused persons have committed the offence as punishable under Sections 504 IPC, Sec. 67 IT Act 2000-2008.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19-03-2022 at 1930 hours

PW1 lodged report with LW8 in which he stated that he is the working president of TRS party, Akunoor Village. On 18-03-2022 at about 1700 hours A1 was posted 3 abusive indecent voice messages in " MITHRA WHATSAPP

GROUP" in which 1st one 0.42 sec., 2nd 0.13 and 3rd is 02.14 sec. and the said voice messages were forwarded to other WhatsApp groups by A2. Due to the act of said persons, the feelings of TRS Party activists were hurt. Hence requested for taking necessary action as per law.

3.In these regard the complaint was received by Sri M.

Satyanarayana , Head Constable , Cherial in Crime No. 35 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 504 IPC, Sec. 67 IT Act 2000-2008. were registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined and recorded statements of witnesses from the evidence collected during the course of investigation, it is made out that the accused persons are liable to be punished for the offence under Sections 504 IPC, Sec. 67 IT Act 2000-2008 and charge sheet was accordingly filed.

4. This Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 504 IPC, Sec. 67 IT Act 2000-2008. against accused persons. On appearance of accused persons copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were furnished to them and they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for which they denied the offence.

Charges are framed under Sections 504 IPC, Sec. 67 IT Act 2000-2008 were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, no incriminating evidence appeared against accused persons, as such, examination under section 313,

Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7. Heard learned both counsels and perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has brought home guilt of accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 504 IPC, Sec. 67 IT Act 2000-2008. beyond reasonable doubt?

Offence. PW1 and PW2 did not support the case of the prosecution and in their chief examination stated that they did not know facts of alleged offence and

Police never examined them nor recorded their statement and they were treated hostile, elicited nothing from mouth of PW1 and PW2 to substantiate case of the prosecution except marking of their portion of under section 161,

Cr.P.C. Statement and signature of complaint on report. Absolutely, there is no material to connect the accused persons with the case. Thus, the prosecution could not prove the charges against the accused persons for the offence under

Sections 504 IPC, Sec. 67 IT Act 2000-2008.

12.In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 504 IPC, Sec. 67 IT Act 2000-2008. and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHERIAL.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1 : P. Balraju None

PW-2: T. Satyanarayan

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: -Nil-

Ex.P1: Witness identified his signature on report

Ex.P2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statemetn of PW2

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHERIAL.

Order Record 33 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
STC/357/2026	PS CHERIAL vs GADDAM NANDHU	13 May 2026	copy of order	—
STC/358/2026	PS KOMURAVELLI vs NATTALA RAMESH	13 May 2026	copy of order	—
STC/359/2026	PS KOMURAVELLI vs DANDLA CHANDRAIAH	13 May 2026	copy of order	—
CC/261/2025	PS. Cherial vs Peddutla Mahender Reddy Alias Pothuraju	12 May 2026	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/959/2025	PS. Cherial vs Anumula Rajashekar	12 May 2026	copy of judgment	Acquitted
STC/354/2026	PS. Maddur vs S. Kranthi	12 May 2026	copy of order	—
STC/355/2026	PS. Cherial. vs P. Mahesh	12 May 2026	copy of order	—
STC/356/2026	PS. Cherial. vs B. Naveen	12 May 2026	copy of order	—
STC/348/2026	PS. komuravelly vs K. Saikiran	11 May 2026	copy of order	—
STC/349/2026	PS. Cherial vs M. Chandraiah	11 May 2026	copy of order	—
STC/350/2026	PS. Cherial vs G. Surya Teja	11 May 2026	copy of order	—
STC/351/2026	PS. Maddur vs Ch. Beeraiah	11 May 2026	copy of order	—
STC/352/2026	PS. Maddur vs Darshanaram Murali	11 May 2026	copy of order	—
STC/353/2026	PS. Maddur vs Ch Sudhakar	11 May 2026	copy of order	—
OS/249/2025	Bandakindi Harshini rep by Bandakindi Akshaya vs Bandakindi Yellamma	08 May 2026	copy of order	—
CC/818/2025	PS MADDUR vs CHOPPARY MAHINDER	08 May 2026	copy of judgment	Acquitted
STC/346/2026	PS. Komuravelly vs K. Ramesh	08 May 2026	copy of order	—
STC/347/2026	PS. Komuravelly vs D. Venkatesh	08 May 2026	copy of order	—
STC-NI/29/2025	GOTTAM VENKATA NARSIMHAREDDY vs BOYANAPALLI RAMNAKAR	08 May 2026	copy of order	—
CC/748/2025	PS. Maddur vs Marri Bhaskar	07 May 2026	copy of order	—
STC/343/2026	PS CHERIAL vs SAYEED AZEEZ	07 May 2026	copy of order	—
STC/344/2026	PS MADDUR vs GUNJI RAMBABU	07 May 2026	copy of order	—
STC/345/2026	PS. Maddur vs K. Srikanth	07 May 2026	copy of order	—
OS/47/2026	Gottam Ragupathi Reddy vs Harsha vardhan Gannamaneni	06 May 2026	copy of order	—
OS/305/2025	Myadaboina Parshramulu vs Annapuram Anasurya	06 May 2026	copy of order	—
OS/344/2025	Thatikonda Laxmi vs Thatikonda Vijayalaxmi	06 May 2026	copy of judgment	—
OS/378/2025	Kondapaka Kanakaiah vs Sarla Raju	06 May 2026	copy of order	—
OS/637/2025	Bodapatla Swamy vs Bodapatla Yadaiah	06 May 2026	copy of order	—
OS/135/2025	Adepu Sudharshan vs Mohd Ghouse	05 May 2026	copy of judgment	—
OS/314/2025	Nangi Mallaiah vs Nangi Bakkaiah	05 May 2026	copy of order	—
OS/366/2025	Nadimiti Saraiah vs Madikonda Kistaiah	05 May 2026	copy of order	—
OS/569/2025	Chilpuri Sugunamma vs Chilpuri Venkat Reddy	05 May 2026	copy of order	—
OS/631/2025	Jeedikanti Ramchandram vs Jeeikanti Rajkumar	05 May 2026	copy of order	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Mr. BANOTHU SRI RAM handled?

Mr. BANOTHU SRI RAM has handled 33 court orders since 2026 at Cherial, JCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 33 orders per month.

What types of cases does Mr. BANOTHU SRI RAM hear?

Based on available records, Mr. BANOTHU SRI RAM primarily handles Criminal matters (Summary Trial Cases, Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Cherial, JCJ Court Complex.

Where is Mr. BANOTHU SRI RAM currently posted?

Mr. BANOTHU SRI RAM is posted as Junior Civil JudgeCheriyal at Cherial, JCJ Court Complex, Siddipet, Telangana.

Are judgments by Mr. BANOTHU SRI RAM available online?

Yes. 3 judgments by Mr. BANOTHU SRI RAM are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Mr. BANOTHU SRI RAM dispose cases?

Mr. BANOTHU SRI RAM disposes approximately 33 cases per month, based on 33 orders handled over their tenure at Cherial, JCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Mr. BANOTHU SRI RAM serving?

Mr. BANOTHU SRI RAM has been serving at Cherial, JCJ Court Complex since 2026. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

STC 55%

OS 33%

CC 12%

Posting History

May 2026 — Present

Junior Civil JudgeCheriyal · 33 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 3

← View all judges at Cherial, JCJ Court Complex