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: August 2020

IPC 166A – Public servant disobeying direction under law

Posted on August 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Whoever, being a public servant,—
(a) knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits him from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or any other
matter, or
(b) knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation, or
(c) fails to record any information given to him under sub-section (1) of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in relation to cognizable offence punishable under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354B, section 370, section 370A, section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509,
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.


Meanings:

(a) knowingly disobeys any direction of the law means, knowingly disobeys any Judgment (of any High Court or Supreme Court) which established a law/principle

(b) knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation means, knowingly disobeys any Judgment (of any High Court or Supreme Court) which established a law/principle

E.g.: No automatic arrests in a any case which has a maximum imprisonment of 7 years (includes 498A IPC, Sec 3 of DP Act etc)


  • Cognizable
  • Bailable
  • Magistrate of the first class
Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged IPC 166A - Public servant disobeying direction under law | Leave a comment

Criminal prosecution of Public Servant (includes a Judge or Magistrate or a Police office)

Posted on August 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Read the 2013 Amendment made to General Penal and Procedural laws of India. All amendments made to CrPC are here.

In this amendment, apart from inserting new sections (around women-protection) into prevailing laws, the following helpful sections were brought in.

  • Judge or Magistrate or a public servant may be prosecuted as per procedure laid out u/s sec 197 CrPC
  • New Cognizable and Bailable offence u/s 166A was inserted into IPC which can be invoke against police if they violate laws.
  • Per the new Explanation given to sec 197(1) CrPC, no sanction is required to prosecute the police. Karnataka High Court clearly explains this here.

Explanation follows…


PART-A

Section 197 CrPC provides the procedure for, When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant, (who is) not removable from his office save (meaning except) by or with the sanction (meaning permission) of the Government (meaning Central or State Governments) is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him, while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction.

So, this mandates that Government permission is must for a Court to take cognizance of such offence by such public servant. Important aspect to note is that, there is no restriction of registering an FIR, only Cognizance needs Government permission to proceed.


PART-B

Now, the same 2013 Amendment to Criminal laws of India also inserted a new section criminalizing three acts/omissions of public servants. It is as follows.

Whoever, being a public servant,—
(a) knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits him from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or any other matter, or
(b) knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation, or
(c) *****
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

The entire procedure of how to make arrest in a cognizable case by police is in CHAPTER V – ARREST OF PERSONS. The various sections under this chapter  are few other sections are as follows:

  • Sec 41 CrPC
  • Sec 41A CrPC
  • Sec 41B CrPC
  • Sec 41D CrPC
  • Sec 46 CrPC
  • Sec 160 CrPC

Let’s focus on clauses (a) and (b) alone. I have given meanings for the words used in these two clauses here.

Clause (a) talks about the police disobeys any direction of the law (they are flouting CrPC so let’s consider only judicial decisions) which prohibits him from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or any other matter.

So, if a Police office disobeys any of these above CrPC provisions such as

  • a male police office arresting female accused,
  • a female arrested after sunset and before sunrise-meaning night time) or
  • no notice issued u/s 41A CrPC to the accused (even WhatsApp, email is also valid service of notice)
  • no notice or communication as mandated u/s 50 CrPC, not given to person being arrested
  • violates judgments which prohibit police in doing something in relation to forcing any person to attend before police for investigation, then such police office is liable for punishment under 166A IPC and a competent Court can take cognizance of his case, without permission from State Government.

Some Judgment (of any High Court or Supreme Court) which established a law/principle regd attendance of a person before police

 

Clause (b) knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation means,

Some Judgments (of any High Court or Supreme Court) which established a law/principle regd investigation

  1. What is Investigation and what is not? [Rajesh Gutta Judgment]
  2. No automatic arrests in a any case which has a maximum imprisonment of 7 years (includes 498A IPC, Sec 3 of DP Act etc) [Arnesh Kumar judgment]

 

Until the 2013 Amendment to Criminal laws of India, the cases involving public servants were taken cognizance, only after/with Government permission.


PART-C

Now, the 2013 Amendment to Criminal laws of India inserted an Explanation under/after Section 197(1) and before 197(2) [this means that the explanation applies to sec 197(1) only]:

Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

Out of the many IPC offences listed in this explanation, Legislature, in it’s endless wisdom, also included Sec 166A also, so that means now, the cases involving public servants can be taken cognizance by Competent Court, without Government permission.

Conclusion

So, get FIRs registered (by making good use of Zero FIR, where appropriate) and prosecute the out-of-line public servant (includes a Judge or Magistrate or a Police office)

Check out the relevant case laws here.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 with O and R CrPC 197 - Prosecution of Judges and public servants IPC 166A - Public servant disobeying direction under law Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Aloka Bose Vs Parmatma Devi and Ors on 17 December 2008

Posted on August 22, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court laid the law down with respect to Contracts signed by Vendor alone are valid or not.

From Para 7,

7) We find that neither of the two decisions have addressed the real issue and cannot be said to be laying down the correct law. The observation in Md. Mohar Ali (supra) stating that an agreement of sale is an unilateral contract is not correct. An unilateral contract refers to a gratuitous promise where only party makes a promise without a return promise. Unilateral contract is explained thus by John D. Calamari & Joseph M. Perillo in The Law of Contracts (4th Edition Para 2-10(a) at pages 64-65):

“If A says to B, ‘If you walk across the Brooklyn Bridge I will pay you $ 100,’ A has made a promise but has not asked B for a return promise. A has asked B to perform, not a commitment to perform. A has thus made an offer looking to a unilateral contract. B cannot accept this offer by promising to walk the bridge. B must accept, if at all, by performing the act. Because no return promise is requested, at no point is B bound to perform. If B does perform, a contract involving two parties is created, but the contract is classified as unilateral because only one party is ever under an obligation.”

All agreements of sale are bilateral contracts as promises are made by both – the vendor agreeing to sell and the purchaser agreeing to purchase. On the other hand, the observation in S.M. Gopal Chetty (supra) that unless agreement is signed both by the vendor and purchaser, it is not a valid contract is also not sound. An agreement of sale comes into existence when the vendor agrees to sell and the purchaser agrees to purchase, for an agreed consideration on agreed terms. It can be oral. It can be by exchange of communications which may or may not be signed. It may be by a single document signed by both parties. It can also be by a document in two parts, each party signing one copy and then exchanging the signed copy as a consequence of which the purchaser has the copy signed by the vendor and a vendor has a copy signed by the purchaser. Or it can be by the vendor executing the document and delivering it to the purchaser who accepts it. Section 10 of the Act provides all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent by the parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not expressly declared to be void under the provisions of the Contract Act. The proviso to section 10 of the Act makes it clear that the section will not apply to contracts which are required to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses or any law relating to registration of documents. Our attention has not been drawn to any law applicable in Bihar at the relevant time, which requires an agreement of sale to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses or to be registered. Therefore, even an oral agreement to sell is valid. If so, a written agreement signed by one of the parties, if it evidences such an oral agreement will also be valid. In any agreement of sale, the terms are always negotiated and thereafter reduced in the form of an agreement of sale and signed by both parties or the vendor alone (unless it is by a series of offers and counter-offers by letters or other modes of recognized communication). In India, an agreement of sale signed by the vendor alone and delivered to the purchaser, and accepted by the purchaser, has always been considered to be a valid contract. In the event of breach by the vendor, it can be specifically enforced by the purchaser. There is, however, no practice of purchaser alone signing an agreement of sale.

 

Aloka Bose Vs Parmatma Devi and Ors on 17 December 2008

An earlier order whereby Aloka Bose (LR of Kanika Bose) was brought on record of case:

Kanika Bose (Aloka Bose) Vs Parmatma Devi and Ors on 16 January 2008
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Aloka Bose Vs Parmatma Devi and Ors Landmark Case Once Signed cannot say Don't know contents Reportable Judgement or Order Vendor Signature is enough for Valid Contract | Leave a comment

Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs Union of India on 18 August 2020

Posted on August 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Vested interests tried to grab the money donated into PM CARES Fund but fell flat on them.. ahem…

Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs Union of India on 18 August 2020
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs Union of India COVID-19 Cases PM CARES Fund PM NDR Fund | Leave a comment

CrPC 231 – Evidence for prosecution

Posted on August 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) On the date so fixed, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.
(2) The Judge may, in his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged CrPC 231 - Evidence for prosecution | Leave a comment

State of Kerala Vs Rasheed on 30 October 2018

Posted on August 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court laid down the following practice guidelines to be followed by all Trial Courts, while conducting a criminal trial.

From Para 12,

12. The following practice guidelines should be followed by trial courts in the conduct of a criminal trial, as far as possible:
i. a detailed case-calendar must be prepared at the commencement of the trial after framing of charges;
ii. the case-calendar must specify the dates on which the examination-in-chief and cross-examination (if required) of witnesses is to be conducted;
iii. the case-calendar must keep in view the proposed order of production of witnesses by parties, expected time required for examination of witnesses, availability of witnesses at the relevant time, and convenience of both the prosecution as well as the defence, as far as possible;
iv. testimony of witnesses deposing on the same subject-matter must be proximately scheduled;
v. the request for deferral under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. must be preferably made before the preparation of the case-calendar;
vi. the grant for request of deferral must be premised on sufficient reasons justifying the deferral of cross-examination of each witness, or set of witnesses;
vii. while granting a request for deferral of cross-examination of any witness, the trial courts must specify a proximate date for the cross-examination of that witness, after the examination-in-chief of such witness(es) as has been prayed for;
viii. the case-calendar, prepared in accordance with the above guidelines, must be followed strictly, unless departure from the same becomes absolutely necessary;
ix. in cases where trial courts have granted a request for deferral, necessary steps must be taken to safeguard witnesses from being subjected to undue influence, harassment or intimidation.

State of Kerala Vs Rasheed on 30 October 2018

Citations: 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 2251, AIR 2019 SC 721

Other sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187514485/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5bdfde204a93267eadff9b10


Supreme Court initiate a Suomoto WP here to assess the effectiveness of the Guidelines issue above.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 231 - Evidence for prosecution CrPC 309 - Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Recommended Guidelines or Directions Reportable Judgement or Order State of Kerala Vs Rasheed | Leave a comment

Exemption from Personal Appearance (u/s 205 CrPC) in Court Judgments

Posted on August 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The following are list of judgments that you can cite while seeking Exemption from Personal Appearance in Court proceedings.

  1. In Sukla Mukherjee Vs State on 13 Dec 1994, Calcutta High Court said 205 CrPC applies to warrants cases also like 498A IPC.
  2. In MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and Ors on 27 August 2001, Supreme Court says,
    • 17. Thus, in appropriate cases the magistrate can allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a counsel. The magistrate is empowered to record the plea of the accused even when his counsel makes such plea on behalf of the accused in a case where the personal appearance of the accused is dispensed with. Section 317 of the Code has to be viewed in the above perspective as it empowers the court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused (provided he is represented by a counsel in that case) even for proceeding with the further steps in the case. However, one precaution which the court should take in such a situation is that the said benefit need be granted only to an accused who gives an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court that he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the case, and that a counsel on his behalf would be present in court and that he has no objection in taking evidence in his absence. This precaution is necessary for the further progress of the proceedings including examination of the witnesses.
  3. In Sri Pritam Sen Vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 October, 2001, Calcutta High Court says, “the learned Magistrate, in the fitness of the things, should not have Issued warrant against the petitioner at the first Instance without assigning any reason in compliance with provisions laid down in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
  4. In Md. Naim @ Md. Naimuddin Vs. State of Bihar and Ors on 08 Dec 2006, Patna High Court said 205 CrPC applies to warrants cases also like 498A IPC.
  5. In the landmark Rajesh Sharma & ors. Vs State of UP and Anr on 27 July 2017 judgment, Supreme Court held that personal exemption to be granted to accused who are residing in outstation locations.
  6. In Sri Rameshwar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 March, 2018, Supreme Court granted Exemption from Personal Appearance to parents of Arnesh kumar.
  7. In Ajay Kumar Bisnoi and Anr Vs MS KEI Industries Limited on 25 September 2015, Madras High Court says, “a Magistrate can dispense with appearance of accused in a criminal case on first appearance itself, if accused is represented by an Advocate and supported by reasonable excuse.”
  8. In Ajay Kumar Saboo Vs State of Bihar on 30 Jun 2017
  9. Puneet Dalmia Vs CBI Hyderabad on 16 December 2019
Posted in LLB Study Material | Tagged CrPC 205 – Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused | Leave a comment

Websites of Police Department of Various States and Union Territories

Posted on August 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here are the websites of Police Departments belonging to various States and Union Territories in India. You will find option on these sites to view/download FIRs. In some sites, you have facility to lodge online complaint/FIR too.

  1. Andhra Pradesh Police
  2. Arunachal Pradesh Police
  3. Assam Police
  4. Bihar Police
  5. Chhattisgarh Police
    • Twitter
  6. Goa Police
  7. Gujarat Police
  8. Haryana Police
  9. Himachal Pradesh Police
    • Twitter
  10. Jharkhand Police
    • Twitter
  11. Karnataka Police
  12. Kerala Police
    • Twitter
  13. Madhya Pradesh Police
  14. Maharashtra Police
    • DGP
  15. Manipur Police
  16. Meghalaya Police
    • Twitter
  17. Mizoram Police
  18. Nagaland Police
  19. Odisha Police
  20. Punjab Police
  21. Rajasthan Police
    • Twitter
  22. Sikkim Police
  23. Tamil Nadu Police
  24. Telangana Police
  25. Tripura Police
    • Twitter
  26. Uttar Pradesh Police
    • Twitter
  27. Uttarakhand Police
  28. West Bengal Police
    • Twitter
  29.  Andaman and Nicobar Islands
  30. Chandigarh Police
  31. Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu
  32. Delhi Police
    • Twitter
  33. Jammu and Kashmir Police
    • Twitter
  34. Ladakh
  35. Lakshadweep Police
  36. Puducherry Police

 

Posted in LLB Study Material | Leave a comment

All Reliefs from Judiciary

Posted on August 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Awareness of law involved in the case laid against you is crucial to handle and take charge of your case yourself. The following are some of the general reliefs one can invoke in Andhra Pradesh for sure. They may apply to other states also. List of High Courts is here.

Note: If you need some reliefs from Police High-handedness, go here.


Always remember Article 21 of Constitution of India

Article 21 is what powers Fair treatment of accused during criminal trials. It provides for fair investigation, Fair trial and Fair Judgment. Any violation of Article 21 gives you liberty to invoke Article 226 at High Court and Article 32 at Supreme Court to seek Writ Reliefs. Case laws are available in chronological order here.

It reads as follows:

21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.


Engagement of Advocates

As per Section 32 of Advocates Act 1961, you can appear in your own case.

If a victim wants to engage a private advocate to prosecute their case, yes you can, but only to assist the PP. The sections to back this aspect are to read

  1. Sec 225 CrPC
  2. Proviso to Sec 24(8) CrPC
  3. Sec 301 CrPC
  4. and finally Sec 302 CrPC. In that Order.

Hope this helps clarify the legal position to those of us who filed/intend to file Criminal cases against OP. This is explained in this case law here. The case law is available on my site here.


Engagement of a third-party other than Advocates

As per again Section 32 of Advocates Act 1961, you can appear in some one else’s case, subject to certain conditions.

  1. You must be a non-advocate
  2. You must have some relationship due to which the accused/defendant trusts you
  3. You may be permitted by a Court, an authority or any person
  4. You may be permitted to appear in any particular case; as a corollary, may not be permitted in all cases or for all clients
  5. Prior Court permission is necessary (via a Petition; sample here)

This is laid out by the Legendary Jurist Sri V.R. Krishna Iyer in this celebrated case law here.


Terminating the services of Advocates

You have complete freedom to terminate the services of your Advocate and engage another one. Just be cautiously about the local procedures which can differ from High Court to High Court. It means, in some High Courts, there is no need of any No-Objection-Certification (NOC) from your current Advocate before you engage another. Like in Karnataka. But not so in Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is unwritten rule to obtain NOC so as to avoid unpleasant situations/conversations/interactions between you and your advocates (or between the earlier and current Advocates). Nevertheless Supreme Court has laid down a landmark case law here. Use it judiciously. Also take a look at other similar case laws here.


First Appearance in Court

Once the case documents are sent to Court via a Charge sheet or Closure report as mandated u/s 173 CrPC, Court Filing Section staff gives is a case number and list it in the causelist (daily timetable of work) before a competent Magistrate/ Judge.

On your first appearance day in the Court, Court staff will ask questions to identify you and your purpose of attending the Court. Next question is if you have engaged an advocate or need time for this purpose. Finally, case will be adjourned to a future date and each accused person will be given a set of copy of the above case documents which were submitted into Court by Police as mandated u/s 207 CrPC.

If you do not want to appear even on first appearance for certain obvious and unavoidable reasons, take help from this case law here and here and make good use of CrPC 205.


Provision u/s 173 CrPC to demand documents from IO to be submitted to Court and to obtain a copy of prosecution documents

 

Section 173(7) reads as follows:

(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5).

How to use it:

If you are good terms with IO, then he/she may find it convenient to furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents. Be courteous to IO to make use of this.

Note: Otherwise, as mentioned above, Court will anyways, provide a copy of the entire bunch of prosecution documents to each accused on first appearance.

Section 173(6) reads as follows:

(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.

How to use it:

If you have submitted any documents/made a statement that IO records during inquiry (supposedly u/s 41A CrPC), and such documents are missing in the bunch of documents procured via above section or u/s 207 CrPC, then submit to the Court that such left-out/excluded documents be brought on record of Court. The case law is here.

Even if such seeking of documents is objected to for any legal reason, one can seek for inspection of such documents as held in here.


Limited Authority of Registry or Filing Section/Office attached to a Court

A Registry attached to a High Court or a Filing Section attached to a District/Magistrate Court has a limited set of functions on the administration of Justice and authority and they certainly can not exercise judicial function as held by Supreme Court here. Use this judgment, as appropriate, to ensure Court staff perform only their duties and nothing beyond that.


Time-bound disposal provisions in Various Enactments

Check this page here for various provision available in the gender-biased laws which specify time limits for disposal of cases.


Use of Interrogatories in Civil and Criminal cases

Carefully designed Interrogatories are a tool to extract helpful information from OP. Read more info here.

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) Order XI – Discovery and Inspection (read with Sec 30) has the necessary Rules to be following to file an application for delivery of interrogatories in a Civil case like DVC, HMA24 etc.

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Section 287 provides a similar provision in Criminal cases in which a commission is issued.

Case laws here.


Usage of Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.)

If you are going to fight your case on your own as Party-in-person, make good use of Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.), which allows you to represent your co-accused, most probably, your parents or family members. Some case laws here.


Exemption from Personal Appearance in Court

You can seek exemption for self or other accused from appearing in the Court in a case u/s 205 CrPC. Vital Case laws are available here.


Absent Petition

You can seek exemption for self or other accused from appearing in the Court on a particular singular date in a case u/s 317 CrPC.

You can send your duly-filled, stamped and signed absent petitions to the Office of Superintendent of the Court where your case is going on, well in advance, with a cover letter to place your Absent petition on the Bench.


Non-bailable Warrants (NBWs) for arrest

It is highly possible that trial courts may issue NBWs at the drop of the hat. Despite having bail for the said accused already. So to overcome this issue, once has to file a Recall petition seeking recall of the NBW. Use these judgments here, to tide over this menace.

The general procedure is issue summons first, then bailable warrants and finally non-bailable warrants for arrest of accused.


Speedy Trial

Our right to Fair and Speedy Trial arises from Article 21 (read with Article 227) . The case laws are here. A landmark judgment is here which also refers to section 483 CrPC. Article 227 also is a remedy.


Arrest unnecessary adjournments

Tareeq pe tareeq epidemic can easily be addressed taking help u/s 309(2) CrPC which is amended by Act 5 of 2009, s. 21 (w.e.f. 1-11-2010). Read the Landmark judgment which insisted on the importance, utility and urgent need of Trial/Session Courts to use the 4th Proviso to this sub-section here (2013). A 2017 reportable decision here. Also Read the other judgments here (included AP HC case law).

Also if prosecution fails to bring the witnesses to Court for examination, Courts can deny granting adjournments as held here.

Also if prosecution or defence try to delay Cross-examination of a witness, Courts can at max defer to 3 days as held here and can also levy heavy fines as held in this tagline here.


Time-barred Litigation

Time-barred litigation should be attacked using the provision u/s 468 of CrPC.


Register a complaint against Public Servant (No sanction from Government required!!!)

If any Public servant (read as Judge, Magistrate or Police) does something to violate their duty as prescribed u/s 197 CrPC, they are liable for criminal prosecution u/s 166A IPC. Read full details here. Karnataka High Court clearly explains this here.


Discharge Petition

If the prosecution documents do not have any basis to connect you to the allegation listed in Charge sheet by Police, this is one opportunity to find the grounds and file a Discharge Petition and come out the case. Check out the landmark case laws here. Especially, B S Neelakanta judgment.


Case Calendar

The common frustration defence has with Prosecution in a false case is, absconding of the prosecution witnesses from Cross-examination. For obvious reasons, false case filers generally, do not appear for Cross examination. To tackle such scenarios, you can use the Supreme Court judgment to force the Trial judge to come up with case calendar for the entire case, which is available here.


Only 6 months Stay on Proceedings

It is common knowledge that one party goes to higher courts seeking to stay proceedings in lower court. Supreme Court has restricting this behavior of endless stay on proceedings which is impacting the disposal of cases in timely manner in this judgment here.


During Cross examination of Lying witnesses

Make good use of this set of legal weapons from Indian Evidence Act 1872.

 

59. Proof of facts by oral evidence. –– All facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence.

60. Oral evidence must be direct. –– Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say ––
if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;
if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds:
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable.
Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.

61. Proof of contents of documents. –– The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.

101. Burden of proof. –– Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. –– When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

 

132. Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate. –– A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind:
Proviso. –– Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer.

138. Order of examinations. –– Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. A landmark judgment is available here.

146. Questions lawful in cross-examination. –– When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any questions which tend––
(1) to test his veracity,
(2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or
(3) to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him, or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture:
Provided that in a prosecution for an offence under section 376, 3[section 376A, section 376AB section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or for attempt to commit any such offence, where the question of consent is an issue, it shall not be permissible to adduce evidence or to put questions in the cross-examination of the victim as to the general immoral character, or previous sexual experience, of such victim with any person for proving such consent or the quality of consent.

155. Impeaching credit of witness. –– The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him: ––
(1) By the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit;
(2) By proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;
(3) By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted;
Explanation. –– A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit may not, upon his examination-in-chief, give reasons for his belief, but he may be asked his reasons in cross-examination, and the answers which he gives cannot be contradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.

159. Refreshing memory. –– A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory.
The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be correct.
When witness may use copy of document to refresh memory. –– Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such document:
Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original. An expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises.

160. Testimony to facts stated in document mentioned in section 159. ––A witness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such document as is mentioned in section 159, although he has no specific recollection of the facts themselves, if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document.


Perjury is nearby

Let the OP lie in Court. Just ensure you have the truth (hint: evidences) with you. Perjury will be awaiting just in case an illegal order gets to be passed. Here are the Case laws.


Contempt Jurisdiction to the rescue

If no order gets passed due to Perjury, let the Contempt jurisdiction take care of falsifications, material concealments, forgeries etc. Again do let the OP lie and cheat, which comes to them naturally. You can get punishment and fine levied upon the OP under the following provisions. Few case here.

  1. Article 129 of the Constitution of India (At Supreme Court)
  2. Article 142 of the Constitution of India (At Supreme Court)
  3. Article 215 of the Constitution of India (At High Courts)
  4. Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (here is the Act)

Compensation

 


Delay in Pronouncing Judgments

Sometimes, Courts take enormous amount of time in pronouncing the Judgments after reserving the same. Supreme Court gave directions that can be used by us. One such landmark judgment is here.


Obtaining copy of the Judgment/Order for free

Order passed under

  • Section 204(3) CrPC: Summon (in a summons-case) or Warrant (in a warrants-case) issued u/s 204(1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. (Also obtain the list of prosecution witnesses !!)
  • Section 248(1) CrPC: Acquittal Order after Trail
  • Section 249 CrPC: Discharge from a non-cognizable or a compoundable case, if the complainant is absent
  • Section 252 CrPC: Conviction Order in case of guilty plea.
  • Section 256 CrPC: Acquittal Order in case of non-appearance or death of complainant
  • Section 257 CrPC: Acquittal Order in case of withdrawal of complaint
  • Section 258 CrPC: Acquittal or Discharge of an accused due to stoppage of proceedings by Magistrate

Remedies against Malicious Prosecution in India

Check out this page here.

 


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Posted in LLB Study Material | Tagged All Reliefs from Judiciary Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Article 227 - Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court Costs For Contempt Of Court CPC Order 11 - Discovery and Inspection Criminal Rules of Practice Rule 37 - One Accused May Be Permitted To Represent Other CrPC 164 - Recording of Confessions and Statements CrPC 173 - Report of Police Officer on Completion of Investigation CrPC 173(5) - Prosecution Can Produce Additional Documents CrPC 197 - Prosecution of Judges and public servants CrPC 205 – Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused CrPC 207 - Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents CrPC 239 - When accused shall be discharged CrPC 287 - Parties may examine witnesses CrPC 309 - Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings CrPC 317 - Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases CrPC 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation CrPC 483 - Duty of High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over Courts of Judicial Magistrates CrPC 73 - Warrant may be directed to any person Fine For Contempt Of Court Imprisonment For Contempt Of Court Interrogatories IPC 166A - Public servant disobeying direction under law Perjury Under 340 CrPC Remedies against Malicious Prosecution in India Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

All Protection from Police High-handedness

Posted on August 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Biggest threat from supposedly-protective Police is the misuse of the official power that they are delegated with, as per law. The following are some of the aspects that may be helpful for you to deal with this misuse of powers menace. List of Police websites is here.

Note: If you need some reliefs from Judiciary, go here.

Threats of all kinds

  1. Generally, some Police calls you up and demands your appearance in the Police Station. He/She gives threats if you disobey such demands. Be clever and ensure you create electronic evidence of such threats and in this digital age, it is easy to get such corrupt/abusive police out of department. That is, only if you want to do that. If you have fear of later consequences, do not do this and suffer later.

Routine Violation of Guidelines issued by Supreme Court of India in it’s Judgments/Orders

  1. No automatic arrest should be effected for any offence in India which carries a punishment of 7 years or less. In such cases, strict adherence of procedure laid down in 41A CrPC is to be followed. This is as per Arnesh Kumar judgment. All the baseless false and motivated cases fall within this bracket. So, if any police violates this guideline, there are consequences listed in the same judgment. So, invoke this judgment, if the offences listed in FIR carry punishment of 7 years or less. This protection is reinforced by this judgment here. Read this page too. The procedure to be followed by police while arresting is elucidated in the landmark judgements here and here.
  2. To overcome this hurdle placed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Police add at least one section which carries punishment more than 7 years or less. If that case, immediately obtain Anticipatory Bail u/s 438 for all the accused persons mentioned in the FIR and this is not a stage where you can argue that allegations on accused other than A1 (most probably your parents and siblings) do not make out the said offence/section. Read about Anticipatory Bail in the below section. Make good use of the efiling facility, during COVID-19 times, as Bails are categorized as Urgent matters, with the help of any advocate in your favorable/local area.
  3. Even if civil matters are pending in courts between parties like DVC, Maintenance, Divorce, Custody, Succession, Police cannot deny to register FIR. 3-Judge bench of SC says so here.

Get FIR from Police websites

Obtain a copy of FIR from the websites of the respective police departments. The list is here. Show them this landmark judgment here, if they act smart.


Use RTI to Obtain Complaint Copy and FIR

One can file a RTI application to the Public Information Officer (PIO) designated to every Police station and seek a copy of Complaint and FIR laid against you. It will take 30 days or less for this, as stipulated in the RTI Act. You can invoke Sec 7 – Risk to live or personal liberty to obtain the above documents in 48 hours.


Compoundability of Offences u/s 320 Cr.P.C.

Not all people can dare to go through the rigors of an Criminal trial for obvious reasons. Cr.P.C provides section 320 which has a list of offences that can be compounded by settling the matter amicable in a Lok Adalat.

In Andhra Pradesh, 494 IPC and 498A IPC are made compoundable via a State amendment here on the recommendation of the Chairperson, AP Women’s Commission.


Bail

Go here.

Additionally, stop all further communication with the gang of Opposite party family, as it is easy for them, on that fact alone (can claim a ground that you threatened them with what-not) to get your bail cancelled. Do NOT be a emotional dumbo and screw your (and your family/parent’s) bail. Please.


Register a complaint against Public Servant (No sanction from Government required!!!)

If any Public servant (read as Judge, Magistrate or Police) does something to violate their duty as prescribed u/s 197 CrPC, they are liable for criminal prosecution u/s 166A IPC. Read full details here.

Additionally, you can invoke section 29 of Police Act 1861 here or/and Section 4 of Police-Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 here.


Beauty of Zero FIR

In Lalita Kumari judgement here, Supreme Court held that if a cognizable offence is reported or brought to the notice of a police station, the IO of that station has to register an FIR. If the said police station does not have territorial jurisdiction, it has to register a FIR with zero ‘0’ number and then transfer it to the police station which has territorial jurisdiction. Other judgments on same principle here or listed in chronological order here.


Possibility of Quashing the FIR and the subsequent proceedings

Once you (and/or your family members) are safe from Police clutches, evaluate the possibilities of Quashing the entire proceedings initiated by Police (or Court) u/s 482 CrPC. Begin reading from here to understand what is meant by a Quash Petition and how best to use it (if applicable) in your cases.


Investigation and Charge sheet

  1. Police are given certain time to complete investigation, as per Law. No point in poking them with RTI applications seeking progress/evidence collected, copy of Charge sheet etc. as such documents will be anyways given to accused persons (one complete set for each accused person) on your first appearance day in Court, after you receive summons from Court. Check your case details/progress regularly on eCourts app.
  2. Police may offer to remove sections and/or accused person from charge sheet for some gratification. On payment of bribe, they may follow through on do so as well. What they do not tell you is about a petition/right called as Protect petition that the de-facto complainant has. By filing this petition or by appearing in Court and orally giving statement that Police colluded with accused and removed sections and/or accused person from charge sheet for some gratification, Magistrate/Judge is within their power to restore back the sections and/or accused person on to the charge sheet. Don’t fall for this trap and lose money, as what you get in return is illusory.
  3. If the I.O. decides to file a charge sheet against you upon completion of investigation, you can request (no demand here) that you be given a copy of charge sheet and other documents (including witness statements recorded u/s 161 CrPC) that are being submitted to Court u/s 173 CrPC.
    • This relief lies in 173(7) CrPC which reads as: “(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5).”

File a complaint at Police Station

Whenever you have to report a cognizable complaint to Police, just follow the three steps in that very same order quickly. Do not crib or cry, if one step does not work per your liking.

PRE-COGNIZANCE STAGE:

  1. Register a written/oral Complaint with the nearest police station where the crime has occurred. This is mandatory as per section 154(1) CrPC.
  2. In the event Police do not register FIR based on your complaint, come back from there and file a Escalation letter (do not send same complaint as-it-is; if you want, you annex a copy of your complaint given at police station to this Escalation letter) to Senior Superintendent of Police of the District or the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolitan City via Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due card. This is mandatory requirement as per section 154(3) CrPC.
  3. Once your complaint to PS in (1) and escalation to SP/CP/SSP in (2) are exhausted and do not give result (registration of FIR and providing a copy to you, free), then register a complaint with the Magistrate Court which exercises Jurisdiction upto the above PS/SP Officer. The prayer will be to ‘direct the SP to direct the PS to register FIR. This is the procedure as per section 156(3) CrPC. If a FIR is registered in any of the these three scenarios, such case is called a Warrant case.
  4. The judgments list is here.

POST-COGNIZANCE STAGE:

  1. If Magistrate does not pass any direction as per above procedures, file a complaint directly u/s 190 CrPC r/w Sec 200 CrPC and Sec 202 CrPC. This is called as Private complaint.
  2. There is scope for going to High Court u/s 482 CrPC.
  3. If all of the above steps fail, go to the High Court under Writ Jurisdiction and file a Writ Petition u/Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking registration of FIR.

Note: Check the Schedule 1-Table in CrPC book to know if a particular IPC crime is Cognizable of not.


Remedies against Malicious Prosecution in India

Check out this page here.


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Posted in LLB Study Material | Tagged Misuse of Police Powers Police Act 1861 Police Confiscated Passport Police Reforms Remedies against Malicious Prosecution in India Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Maintenance after Mutual Consent Divorce May 24, 2022
  • Ganesh Vs Sudhirkumar Shrivastava and Ors on 22 Apr 2019 May 24, 2022
  • Prasenjit Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors on 02 Sep 2021 May 24, 2022
  • MS Knit Pro International Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 20 May 2022 May 23, 2022
  • Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 May 20, 2022

Most Read Posts

  • Lifecycle Stages of a Maintenance Case under 125 CrPC (3,496 views)
  • Arunkumar N Chaturvedi Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 24 Dec 2013 (2,712 views)
  • Neha Vs Vibhor Garg on 12 Nov 2021 (1,897 views)
  • Bhagyashri Jagdish Jaiswal Vs Jagdish Sajjanlala Jaiswal and Anr on 26 Feb 2022 (1,114 views)
  • Jagdish Shrivastava Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Mar 2022 (1,006 views)
  • Deepak Sharma Vs State of Haryana on 12 Jan 2022 (672 views)
  • NBW Judgments (624 views)
  • Life Cycles of Various case types (560 views)
  • Busarapu Satya Yesu Babu Vs State of AP and Sake Roja on 05 Nov 2021 (519 views)
  • Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (519 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (299)Reportable Judgement or Order (285)Landmark Case (282)Work-In-Progress Article (213)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (207)Catena of Landmark Judgments (184)1-Judge Bench Decision (100)Sandeep Pamarati (85)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (70)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (70)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (50)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (48)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (37)Recommended Guidelines or Directions (33)Advocate Antics (33)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (32)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (31)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (589)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (292)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (151)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (103)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (55)General Study Material (55)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (47)LLB Study Material (46)Prakasam DV Cases (46)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (46)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (38)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (34)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (32)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (14)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • muralidhar Rao Sirangi on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • ShadesOfKnife on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • anuj on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • May 2022 (13)
  • 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 (29)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (36)
  • December 2019 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • 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 (102)
  • 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
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Workers Update Delays and Cloudflare Pages Deployment Delays May 24, 2022
    May 24, 14:47 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.May 24, 14:21 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.May 24, 13:48 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is experiencing delays in updating Workers on the edge and executing new Cloudflare Pages deployments. This does not impact existing Workers and Pages projects already […]
  • Cloudflare API service issues impacting API Shield - API Discovery May 24, 2022
    May 24, 14:12 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.May 24, 13:34 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.May 24, 10:32 UTCIdentified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented.May 24, 08:36 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is investigating issues with Cloudflare APIs related to API Shield's […]
  • Cloudflare Workers Analytics Issues May 23, 2022
    May 23, 23:54 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.May 23, 23:46 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.May 23, 21:51 UTCInvestigating - Some customers might experience errors accessing Cloudflare Workers Analytics data in the Cloudflare dashboard and APIs.

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 122.14.136.251 | SD May 23, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 87,572 | First: 2022-03-03 | Last: 2022-05-23
  • 103.18.100.243 | SD May 23, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 7,283 | First: 2022-04-04 | Last: 2022-05-23
  • 103.18.100.238 | SD May 23, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 7,353 | First: 2018-07-17 | Last: 2022-05-23
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 697 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel