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: March 2020

IPC 354E – Sextortion

Posted on March 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) Whoever,—
(a) being in a position of authority; or
(b) being in a fiduciary relationship; or
(c) being a public servant,
abuses such authority or fiduciary relationship or misuses his official position to employ physical or non physical forms of coercion to extort or demand sexual favours from any woman in
exchange of some benefits or other favours that such person is empowered to grant or withhold, shall be guilty of offence of sextortion.
Explanation.–For the purpose of this section, ‗sexual favour‘ shall mean and include any kind of unwanted sexual activity ranging from sexually suggestive conduct, sexually explicit actions such as touching, exposure of private body parts to sexual intercourse, including exposure over the electronic mode of communication.
(2) Any person who commits the offence of sextortion shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but may extend to five years and with fine.


IPC 354D here

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged IPC 354E - Sextortion | Leave a comment

IPC 354D – Stalking

Posted on March 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) Any man who—
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking:
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that—
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the
State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.


IPC 354C here and IPC 354E here

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged IPC 354D - Stalking | Leave a comment

IPC 354C – Voyeurism

Posted on March 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the
perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.—For the purpose of this section, “private act” includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy and where the victim’s genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.
Explanation 2.—Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such  dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section.


IPC 354B here and IPC 354D here

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged IPC 354C - Voyeurism | Leave a comment

C Krishna Priya Vs State of AP on 14 September 2018

Posted on March 19, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Another judgment from Erstwhile High Court of AP which rapped on the knuckles of the JMFC who dismissed the Discharge petition filed u/s 239 CrPC, where there were no specific allegations on the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that at the time of marriage of the complainant with the Accused No.1, the petitioner was 12 years old. No specific allegations are made against the petitioner, either in the charge sheet or in the statement of list of witnesses, except ominous allegations that the petitioner being sister of A.1, also demanded for additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be maintained.

7. The learned public prosecutor appearing for the respondent state, fairly conceded that no specific allegations are made against the petitioner except a vague allegation that the petitioner also demanded for additional dowry.

8. Having heard both the counsel and from the perusal of the material on record, particularly, the charge sheet what all that is stated against the petitioner herein is that A-1 to A-4 demanded LW.1 to get additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs for doing business and demanded LW1 to sign on diverse papers to enable the A.1 to marry another girl. In fact no specific dates, month or year have been mentioned. The said allegation is as vague as possible.

Now Start music…

9. In the recent times, various complaints are being lodged for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in which, whether any allegation is made out or not, all the family members are being roped in as accused only for the purpose of harassing the innocent family members whereby forcing them to come to terms.

10. From the above, this Court is of the opinion that when no specific allegations are made against the petitioner who is the sister of A.1, the continuation of proceedings against her would amount to abuse of process of the Court, apart from putting the petitioner to undue hardship of facing the trial. As such, this court is inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below in declaring the discharge of the petitioner.

C Krishna Priya Vs State of AP on 14 September 2018

Citations: [

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79415399/

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations C Krishna Priya Vs State of AP CrPC 239 - Discharge Rejection is Set Aside Legal Terrorism Rajesh Sharma and ors. Vs State of UP and Anr Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

State of AP Vs AP State Election Commission on 18 March 2020

Posted on March 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has held that Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission’s decision to postpone local body elections cannot be faulted with. Rest of the points adjudicated are in the below Disposal Order.

State of AP Vs AP State Election Commission on 18 March 2020

Citations: [(

Other Source links:


Comments made by various State actors on State Election Commissioner Shri Dr. Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar on March 15, 2020 (and later) are available here.

After watching the theatrics, come back and go through following content.


Then SEC sent a letter to Central Home Minister seeking protection for self and his family from the State Chief Minister and his goons.

 

AP State Election Commissioner wrote a letter to center and requested security with central force. Isn’t shame to AP Police and Govt? @PMOIndia @rashtrapatibhvn Please intervene & impose president rule in Andhra. No democracy in AP. @umasudhir @vasudha_ET @nistula @RatanSharda55 pic.twitter.com/U5vRvFTUHc

— Sai Bollineni ™ (@saibollineni) March 18, 2020

Here is the Full letter in PDF.

AP State Election Commissioner's Letter to MHA Dt-18 March 2020

After all this nonsense, the incumbent AP Govt make this move here.


A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Election Matter State of AP Vs AP State Election Commission | Leave a comment

Muppa Venkateswara Rao Vs State of AP on 10 March 2020

Posted on March 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, AP High Court has directed that State Election Commission take steps to remove the colours painted on the Panchayat buildings before Elections can be conducted. State Government lead by Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, had painted the colours of their Party on the Panchayat buildings making a loss to the tune of allegedly over 1000 Crores (estimate only) to the exchequer. Now for removal also more funds will be spent. What a mockery of public and public funds!!!

Hopefully, the idiotic voter of AP would be rejoicing now for the quandary of public exchequer which is funded by levying taxes on these very same sheeple !!!

Muppa Venkateswara Rao Vs State of AP on 10 March 2020

Citations: [2

Other Source links:


State of AP dragged it’s feet to Supreme Court on the above judgment and got this in return…


To attack this judgment, AP Government took this step here.


A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Election Matter Misuse of Public Funds Muppa Venkateswara Rao Vs State of AP | Leave a comment

Ishwar Patange Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 March 2020

Posted on March 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court held that since there is no natural calamity, there is no need to postpone, elections for Cooperative Societies.

Ishwar Patange Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 March 2020

Citations: [(

Other Source links:


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 Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Election Matter Ishwar Patange Vs State of Maharashtra | Leave a comment

Kishansing Tomar Vs Municipal Corp of Ahmedabad and Ors on 19 October 2006

Posted on March 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark judgment, Supreme Court held that State Election Commission (SEC) is a Constitutional body and invariably, State Governments should support State Election Commissioner in conducting free and fair Local body elections. It also held that State Commission shall not put forward any excuse based on unreasonable grounds and not yield to situations created by vested interests to postpone elections. It is stated that except in exceptional circumstances of man-made calamities such as rioting or breakdown of law and order, or natural calamities, Election Commission would be justified in delaying the Election Process.

 

In this direction, it is necessary for all the State governments to recognize the significance of the State Election Commission, which is a constitutional  body and it shall abide by the directions of the Commission in the same manner in which it follows the directions of the Election Commission of India  during the elections for the Parliament and State Legislatures. In fact, in the domain of elections to the Panchayats and the Municipal bodies under the Part IX and Part IX A for the conduct of the elections to these bodies they enjoy the same status as the Election Commission of India.

 

From the reading of the said provisions it is clear that the powers of the State Election Commission in respect of conduct of elections is no less than  that of the Election Commission of India in their respective domains. These powers are, of course, subject to the law made by Parliament or by State
Legislatures provided the same do not encroach upon the plenary powers of the said Election Commissions.

The State Election Commissions are to function independent of the concerned State Governments in the matter of their powers of superintendence, direction and control of all elections and preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats and Municipalities.

 

Article 243 K (3) also recognizes the independent status of the State Election Commission. It states that upon a request made in that behalf the  Governor shall make available to the State Election Commission “such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the
State Election Commission by clause (1). It is accordingly to be noted that in the matter of the conduct of elections, the concerned government shall have to render full assistance and co-operation to the State Election Commission and respect the latter’s assessment of the needs in order to ensure that free and fair elections are conducted.

 

Also, for the independent and effective functioning of the State Election Commission, where it feels that it is not receiving the cooperation of the  concerned State Government in discharging its constitutional obligation of holding the elections to the Panchayats or Municipalities within the time
mandated in the Constitution, it will be open to the State Election Commission to approach the High Courts, in the first instance, and thereafter the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ directing the concerned State Government to provide all necessary cooperation and assistance to the State Election Commission to enable the latter to fulfill the constitutional mandate.

Kishansing Tomar Vs Municipal Corp of Ahmedabad and Ors on 19 October 2006

Citations: [(2006) 8 SCC 352], [2006 (9) JT 320], [2006 SCR SUPP 7 454], [2007 AIR SC 269], [2006 SCALE 10 438], [2007 BOMCR SC 4 414], [2006 AIOL 715]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1736371/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae35e4b01497114132f5


Couple of election-related judgments here and 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 Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Election Matter Kishansing Tomar Vs Municipal Corp of Ahmedabad and Ors Landmark Case | Leave a comment

State of AP Vs Pinninti Appalareddi on 27 February 2020

Posted on March 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

 

State of AP Vs Pinninti Appalareddi on 27 February 2020

Citations: [

Other Source links:


 

Posted in Vizag Series | Tagged Acquitted in IPC 498A CrPC 239 - Discharged IPC 498A - Cruelty Not Proved IPC 498a - Not Made Out Against Parents or Relatives State of AP Vs Pinninti Appalareddi Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Bhikaji Wagh on 26 February 2020

Posted on March 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single-judge bench of Bombay High Court highlighted the grounds on which a Legal terrorism was intended to be unleashed on an innocent family u/s 498A IPC, and thwarted it royally.

From Paras 9 and 10

9 Admittedly, complainant (PW-1) led a very happily married life with accused no.1. Their date of marriage is 27th June 1990 and PW-1 left the matrimonial home on 28th March 2001. As per PW-1, accused was given lot of gold, household appliances and Rs.50,000/- within three months of her marriage, which means that these things were given in the year 1990. There is no explanation as to why the complaint was then lodged only on 4th January 2002. According to PW-1, accused no.1 demanded Rs.1 lakh when he saw the retirement benefits cheque in the hand of her father and her father retired on 28th February 2001. The complaint has been lodged on 4th January 2002. The delay is not explained. Moreover, complainant left the house leaving behind her children, who were on the date she left the house were 9 years and 6 years, respectively. PW-1 never filed any custody petition or any petition for divorce. PW-1 filed maintenance petition on 10th March 2003. The delay again has not been explained.

10 It is settled law that delay in lodging the complaint cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the complaint. At the same time, delay has the effect of putting the Court in its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory. If prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay, the delay could be fatal to prosecution.

From Para 11,

11 In this case, there is not even an attempt by the prosecution to explain the delay. It appears that PW-1 had no problems living alone with her
parents but when PW-1 heard from her father that accused no.1 has married accused no.5 (which again has not proved), PW-1 decided to teach accused no.1 a lesson. It is unfortunate that in matters like this even the family members are getting dragged. Prosecution should refrain from dragging allfamily members unless there is enough specific evidence against the family members otherwise provisions of Section 498-A will unfortunately bemisused as a weapon.

Finally, in Para 15,

15 There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to the accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless they are proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured their acquittal, the presumption of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. For acquitting the accused, the Trial Court rightly observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.

State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Bhikaji Wagh on 26 February 2020

Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE BOM 331]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63867796/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e5cd685cfc07432f89ed3dc

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 378 - Appeal In Case Of Acquittal Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives Hearsay Evidence IPC 494 - Not Made Out Legal Terrorism Misuse of Section 498A of IPC Rajesh Sharma and ors. Vs State of UP and Anr State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Bhikaji Wagh | Leave a comment

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
its_me_jasraj 𝗗𝗿.𝗝𝗮𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗷 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗷𝗮𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗶 @its_me_jasraj ·
21 Jun

5 Protein Facts They Never Told You ✅

Reply on Twitter 2068689430140080559 Retweet on Twitter 2068689430140080559 120 Like on Twitter 2068689430140080559 402 X 2068689430140080559
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
mohiniwealth Mohini Maheshwari @mohiniwealth ·
22 Jun

The Dark Truth 🥷

Reply on Twitter 2068918051966513614 Retweet on Twitter 2068918051966513614 58 Like on Twitter 2068918051966513614 233 X 2068918051966513614
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
shree_2_2 श्री @shree_2_2 ·
21 Jun

He spoke on behalf of all nationalists loved this side of Anand sir😅😅😅

Reply on Twitter 2068683121504170027 Retweet on Twitter 2068683121504170027 317 Like on Twitter 2068683121504170027 817 X 2068683121504170027
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
shoneekapoor ShoneeKapoor @shoneekapoor ·
20 Jun

Judge Calls Wife’s Beating “Blessing”? Gender Reverse Karke Dekho

A husband tells the court that his wife beats him. In a viral clip from Gwalior Bench proceedings, the judge is heard saying:

“Husband who gets beaten up by his wife is a lucky man. That beating is a blessing.

Reply on Twitter 2068312690423185883 Retweet on Twitter 2068312690423185883 257 Like on Twitter 2068312690423185883 490 X 2068312690423185883
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Pavul Yesu Dhasan Vs Registrar SHRC of TN and Ors on 30 Apr 2025 June 18, 2026
  • Manoj Kumar Vs Nita Bharti on 17 Mar 2026 June 17, 2026
  • Cruelty as a Criminal Offence Explained June 12, 2026
  • Bail Compliance Undertaking Format – Draft, Legal Requirements & Sample Template June 12, 2026
  • Warning Signs of Escalating Matrimonial Litigation – Early Red Flags Every Spouse Should Recognize June 12, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,940 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,473 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,361 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,809 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,189 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (1,998 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,929 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,772 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (1,686 views)
  • Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025 (1,536 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (433)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (413)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (382)Landmark Case (381)1-Judge Bench Decision (362)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (293)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (92)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 (61)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (753)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (328)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (186)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 (93)Legal Procedure (77)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (70)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (61)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (52)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (46)Prakasam DV Cases (46)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (45)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 Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (27)

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

  • June 2026 (9)
  • 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

  • ARN (Stockholm) on 2026-06-25 June 25, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 25, 00:00 - 05:00 UTC Jun 19, 14:18 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ARN (Stockholm) datacenter on 2026-06-25 between 00:00 and 05:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
  • ARN (Stockholm) on 2026-06-24 June 24, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 24, 00:00 - 05:00 UTC Jun 19, 13:08 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ARN (Stockholm) datacenter on 2026-06-24 between 00:00 and 05:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
  • MSP (Minneapolis) on 2026-06-23 June 23, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 23, 03:00 - 08:00 UTC Jun 18, 18:30 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in MSP (Minneapolis) datacenter on 2026-06-23 between 03:00 and 08:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 34.14.86.214 | SD June 22, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 12 | First: 2026-01-12 | Last: 2026-06-22
  • 34.52.210.100 | S June 22, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2 | First: 2026-06-22 | Last: 2026-06-22
  • 45.174.88.88 | S June 22, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 10 | First: 2025-08-07 | Last: 2026-06-22
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1272 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel