web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: January 2020

Dayanand Rao Rangadal Vs Suresh and Ors on 14 August, 2008

Posted on January 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on landmark judgments here, here and here, Karnataka High Court held that,

  1. a written statement is a public document
  2. a criminal proceeding can be initiated when a civil proceeding is ongoing
Dayanand Rao Rangadal Vs Suresh and Ors on 14 August, 2008

Citations: [2011 KCCR 1 230], [2008 SCC ONLINE KAR 758]

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56093e42e4b0149711231bf9


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 199 - Defamation Dayanand Rao Rangadal Vs Suresh and Ors IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation

Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal on 1 November 1965

Posted on January 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Madras High Court held that,

It is clear from what I have stated that the decision is hardly applicable to the facts of the present case. The decision refers to a publication in a paper and it should be proved that the accused was responsible for the publication. But in this case, the defamatory matter contained in the plaint was  admittedly signed and filed by the petitioner. There can be no doubt that there was publication of the defamatory matter.

Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal on 1 November, 1965

Citations: [AIR 1966 Mad 363], [1966 CriLJ 1149], [1966 MLJ 1 547], [1965 SCC ONLINE MAD 248], [1966 MAD LJ 1 547],

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735036/


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal

Defamation Judgments

Posted on January 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here I list the landmark judgments from High Courts of India and Supreme Court of India.

 

1920-1925

  1. Gopal Naidu and another Vs King-Emperor on 22 December 1922 (Bombay High Court: the purpose of the codified statute is that on any point specifically dealt with by it the law shall be ascertained by interpreting the language used; the Court is not entitled to invoke the Common Law of England in the matter of defamation)

1926-1930

  1. Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926 (Madras High Court: the defamatory matter contained in the plaint are accusations in nature and they do not have absolute privilege but only qualified privilege as provided by sec 499 of IPC)

 

1931-1935

 

1936-1940

 

1941-1945

 

1946-1950

 

1951-1955

 

1956-1960

 

1961-1965

  1. Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal on 1 November, 1965 (Madras High Court: the defamatory matter contained in the plaint was  admittedly signed and filed by the petitioner. There can be no doubt that there was publication of the defamatory matter)

 

1966-1970

  1. M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr on 13 November 1968 (Supreme Court of India:  at common law there had never been a separate principle or rule that communications between a husband and wife during marriage were inadmissible in evidence on the ground of public policy.)

 

1971-1975

  1. Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram on 22 Apr 1971 (Supreme Court of India:  as far as possible the words spoken or the statements actually made and which he alleges to be defamatory are before the court)

 

1976-1980

  1. Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra on 28 Feb 1978 (defamation has to be filed with in time limitation as per 468 CrPC)

 

 

1996-2000

  1. Mukund Martand Chitnis Vs Madhuri Mukund Chitnis And on 23 April 1991 ()
  2. Dr. J.Sudarshan Vs R.Sankaran on 16 August, 1991 (Madras High Court: The Civil Court would confine its decision to the trespass, threat of injury and damage by the servants, agents and workmen of the various defendants and the entitlement of token damages by the respondent, while the criminal Court, the passage being per se defamatory, would proceed to find out whether any one of the 10 Exceptions to S. 499, I.P.C. would apply.)
  3. Shatrughna Prasad Sinha Vs Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi and Ors on 10 September 1996 (SC: Statements made were not defamatory)

 

2001-2005

 

2006-2010

  1. M.K.Prabhakaran and Anr Vs T.E.Gangadharan and Anr on 7 March, 2006 (Kerala HC: ‘Once a statement has been filed in a court of law, that statement can be taken as published and if such a statement amounts to per se defamatory, it is the duty of the accused to establish that they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C.‘)
  2. Japani Sahoo Vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty on 27 Jul 2007 (SC: Limitation u/s 468 starts from the date of making the complaint and not on the date the cognizance was taken)
  3. Dayanand Rao Rangadal Vs Suresh and Ors on 14 August, 2008 (Karnataka High Court: “a written statement is a public document” and “a criminal proceeding can be initiated when a civil proceeding is ongoing”)
  4. Anubhav Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan on 5 October 2009 (At SC, all cases quashed, after settlement)

 

2011-2015

  1. Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 4 Jul 2011 (Defamation was filed after 3 years – Time barred)
  2. Gambhirsinh R.Dekare Vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel and Anr on 11 March 2013 (SC held allegation to the effect who authorised printing of defamatory statements is sufficient)
  3. Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February 2014 (Bombay HC: Divorce for husband due to mental cruelty via defamation by knife)
  4. Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 19 March, 2015 (Procedure for filing non-cognizable cases defined by Dipak Misra)
  5. Rajdeep Sardesai Vs State Of A.P on 14 May 2015 (SC dismissed Quash against AP HC Order)
  6. S.R.Sukumar Vs S.Sunaad Raghuram on 2 July 2015 (At SC: Amendment allowed in complaint)

 

2016-2020

  1. Subramanian Swamy Vs Union of India on 13 May, 2016 (Supreme Court: IPC 499 and 500 and CrPC 199 are Constitutionally valid)
  2. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Saha Vs Hindustan Media Ventrues Ltd and Ors on 06 July 2017 (Delhi HC: No territorial jurisdiction)
  3. Mahadev I Todale Vs Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd and Ors on 10 July 2017 (Delhi HC:)
  4. E.Krishna and Ors Vs Srinivasa Chary on 17 November 2017 (AP HC: Not defamation)
  5. X Vs Y on 2 November, 2018 (Bombay HC: Impotent word is Defamatory)
  6. M.K.Varghese Cor Episcopa Vs State of Kerala on 08 January, 2020 (Kerala High Court: Complaint of defamation cannot be quashed under section 482 CrPC, as it does not have absolute privilege and only qualified privilege)
  7. Rabindra Nath Pal Vs Ratikanta Paul and Ors on 6 Mar 2020 (Defamation was filed after 3 years – Time barred)

 

 


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Summary Post Work-In-Progress Article

M.K.Varghese Cor Episcopa Vs State of Kerala on 08 January, 2020

Posted on January 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on landmark judgments given in the Index below, Kerala High Court held that, complaint of defamation against him cannot be quashed u/s 482 CrPC.

M.K.Varghese Cor Episcopa Vs State of Kerala on 08 January, 2020

Citations: [ICL 2020 Ker. 14], [2020 (1) KHC 390], [2020 SCC ONLINE KER 85], [2020 KLJ 2 359]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149840024/


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.

Posted in High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation M.K.Varghese Cor Episcopa Vs State of Kerala

Anokhilal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December 2019

Posted on January 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Shri Uday Umesh Lalit of Supreme Court delivered the judgment and laid down certain norms as follow:

i) In all cases where there is a possibility of life sentence or death sentence, learned Advocates who have put in minimum of 10 years practice at the Bar alone be considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae or through legal services to represent an accused.
ii) In all matters dealt with by the High Court concerning confirmation of death sentence, Senior Advocates of the Court must first be considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae.
iii) Whenever any learned counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae, some reasonable time may be provided to enable the counsel to prepare the matter. There cannot be any hard and fast rule in that behalf. However, a minimum of seven days’ time may normally be considered to be  appropriate and adequate.
iv) Any learned counsel, who is appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused must normally be granted to have meetings and discussion with the concerned accused. Such interactions may prove to be helpful as was noticed in Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan.

Anokhilal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December, 2019

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110783225/

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Anokhilal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty

P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Vs State of Kerala on 29 November, 2019

Posted on January 13, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court answered the following question…

  1. whether the contents of a memory card/pen drive being electronic record as predicated in Section 2(1)(t) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the 2000 Act’) would, thereby qualify as a “document” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the 1872 Act’) and Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the 1860 Code’)? If so, whether it is obligatory to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of such memory card/pen drive to the accused facing prosecution for an alleged offence of rape and related offences since the same is appended to the police report submitted to the Magistrate and the prosecution proposes to rely upon it against the accused, in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the 1973 Code’)?
  2. The next question is: whether it is open to the Court to decline the request of the accused to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of the subject memory card/pen drive in the form of video footage/clipping concerning the alleged incident/occurrence of rape on the ground that it would impinge upon the privacy, dignity and identity of the victim involved in the stated offence(s) and more so because of the possibility of misuse of such cloned copy by the accused (which may attract other independent offences under the 2000 Act and the 1860 Code)?
P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Vs State of Kerala on 29 November, 2019

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188011203/


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Vs State of Kerala

Hardik Bharatbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat on 18 December, 2015

Posted on January 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment, Justice Shri JB Pardiwala had passed some critical remarks against Reservations in India and had irked 50+ Members of Parliament who triggered his Impeachment process in Rajya Sabha. Due to this he had to strike down a paragraph from the Judgment. Read the news clippings from this judgment and subsequent removals of the concerned paragraph from judgment.

Here is the Para 62 from the original judgment.

62. If I am asked by any one to name two things, which has destroyed this country or rather, has not allowed the country, to progress in the right direction, then the same is, (i) Reservation and (ii) Corruption.It is very shameful for any citizen of this country to ask for reservation after 65 years of independence.When our Constitution was framed, it was understood that the reservation would remain for a period of 10 years, but unfortunately, it has continued even after 65 years of independence. The biggest threats, today, for the country is corruption. The countrymen should rise and fight against corruption at all levels, rather than shedding blood and indulging in violence for the reservation. The reservation has only played the role of an amoeboid monster sowing seeds of discord amongst the people. The importance of merit, in any society, cannot be understated. The merit stands for a positive goal and when looked at instrumentally, stands for “rewarding those actions that are considered good”. Then, this instrumental nature of merit that should be given importance – emphasizing on and rewarding merit is a means towards achieving what is regarded as good in the society. The parody of the situation is that India must be the only country wherein some of the citizens crave to be called backward.

Hardik Bharatbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat 18 December, 2015 (Original Order)

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38630401/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e0fa87607dba3896607933 (with original version of judgment)


Then the News follows

Patidar quota agitation_ Gujarat High Court calls reservation an ‘amoeboid monster’ _ Cities News,The Indian Express

Then the Judge removes the Para 62

Sitting Gujarat HC judge does U-turn on remarks in Hardik Patel case
Hardik Bharatbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat 18 December, 2015 (Correction Order)

The following is the Revised Judgment, after removing Para 62

Hardik Bharatbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat 18 December, 2015 (Corrected Order)

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Hardik Bharatbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat Revised Judgment

Jayesh Khemchandbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat on 9 February, 2017

Posted on January 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the Regular Bail application of the Rapist Jayesh Patel that got rejected by Gujarat High Court.

Jayesh Khemchandbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat on 9 February, 2017

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155267301/


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 439 - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail Jayesh Khemchandbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat Regular Bail Denied Sensational Or Peculiar Cases

Jayeshbhai Khemchandbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat on 17 March, 2017

Posted on January 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The Rapist Jayesh Patel has prayed for a copy of the medical reports to be given to him under section 207 CrPC, which were purported to prove the crime of rape he committed. His prayer was denying by the Gujarat High Court stating that the accused will be entitled to such documents during the course of trial and may not be available at the current stage where he would like to file Discharge petition u/s 239 CrPC.

Jayeshbhai Khemchandbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat on 17 March, 2017

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21681381/


Rapist’s Regular Bail application rejection order is here.

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 309 - Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings Jayeshbhai Khemchandbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes

State of Gujarat Vs Ashokkumar Lavjiram Joshi on 6 April, 2018

Posted on January 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Referring to this judgment here, Justice Shri J,B. Pardiwala has held that any document can be given in evidence other than those that were submitted to Court us 207 CrPC at any point in time of the trial. Accused is entitled to a copy of such document.

State of Gujarat Vs Ashokkumar Lavjiram Joshi on 6 April, 2018

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195549824/


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 173 - Report of Police Officer on Completion of Investigation CrPC 173(5) - Prosecution Can Produce Additional Documents CrPC 207 - Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents State of Gujarat Vs Ashokkumar Lavjiram Joshi

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rose_k01 Rosy @rose_k01 ·
10 Jul

Women in the Yao village of China are famous for having the Longest hair in the World averaging 6 feet long. Women in their 80s still don't have a Single grey hair!! Their secret is Fermented Rice water. Watch How they make & use it 🍚🌾💧

Reply on Twitter 2075635918879523325 Retweet on Twitter 2075635918879523325 898 Like on Twitter 2075635918879523325 3901 X 2075635918879523325
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ani ANI @ani ·
12 Jul

Promo | ANI Podcast with R.V.S. Mani, Former Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Premieres Today at 5 PM IST

"Narendra Modi and Amit Shah Were the Targets in the Ishrat Jahan Case."

"None of the Files Had the Term 'Hindu Terror' Until 2010."

"Digvijaya Singh Asked Me to

Reply on Twitter 2076177037165994029 Retweet on Twitter 2076177037165994029 614 Like on Twitter 2076177037165994029 1586 X 2076177037165994029
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
kolla_ch1 చైతన్య కొల్లా @kolla_ch1 ·
11 Jul

రాష్ట్రం మీద పడి.. అడ్డ గాడిదల్లా... అడ్డ దిడ్డంగా పడి దోచుకున్న అడ్డమైన ఎదవలకు ఊడిగం చేస్తూ

డెలివరీ బాయ్ లను అవమానపర్చే

ఆ నెల తక్కువ సన్నాసి మొహాన కొట్టండయ్యా దీన్ని 🤷‍♂️

Reply on Twitter 2076018293836808437 Retweet on Twitter 2076018293836808437 111 Like on Twitter 2076018293836808437 642 X 2076018293836808437
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
shunyta_007 𝐒ɦυ𐓣𝗒𝗍α @shunyta_007 ·
12 Jul

Observation Skills 🔥

Reply on Twitter 2076189650885226496 Retweet on Twitter 2076189650885226496 537 Like on Twitter 2076189650885226496 3146 X 2076189650885226496
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs N.C.T. Delhi and Anr on 23 Mar 2001 July 12, 2026
  • Application for Day-to-Day Trial – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft July 8, 2026
  • Pooja Ramesh Singh Vs JnK Bank and Anr on 02 Jul 2026 July 8, 2026
  • A.S.S.K.Durga Prasad Vs NCDRC and Ors on 24 Jun 2026 July 7, 2026
  • Application for Permanent Exemption from Appearance – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft July 7, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (5,046 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,601 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,529 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,999 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,370 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (2,151 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (2,055 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,919 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (1,864 views)
  • Life Cycle of a Perjury Case (1,784 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (436)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (422)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (386)Landmark Case (383)1-Judge Bench Decision (366)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (297)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (91)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (66)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (758)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (187)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (164)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (95)Legal Procedure (83)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (62)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (51)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (47)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • KONURU VINAYKUMAR on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)

Archives of SoK

  • July 2026 (13)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Cloudflare Storage Maintenance July 16, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 16, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC Jul 6, 22:38 UTC Scheduled - Cloudflare has scheduled maintenance for our backend storage systems. Services will continue to operate normally, but customers will be unable to create/delete/modify Client-Side Security settings via the Dashboard or the public API for a period of up to […]
    Cloudflare

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 188.95.67.196 | S July 13, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 106 | First: 2025-03-27 | Last: 2026-07-13
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1092 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel