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: June 2021

Sameer Datta Kadam Vs Supriya Sameer Kadam

Posted on June 30, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Interim Maintenance of 5 lakhs per month was granted by Trial Court which was challenged at Bombay High Court. High Court did not find any error in the Interim Order of the trial Court. It held that the Trial Court rightly gave reasons for granting the interim maintenance from the date of application instead of from the date of Order.

Sameer Datta Kadam Vs Supriya Sameer Kadam on 10 Jan 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/42033330/

https://www.legitquest.com/case/sameer-datta-kadam-v-supriya-sameer-kadam/1E27A6


Supreme Court also denied to interfere into the Interlocutory Order but extended the time to settle the arrears from 4 weeks to 8 weeks.

Sameer Datta Kadam Vs Supriya Sameer Kadam on 08 Feb 2019

Source:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83077908/

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged HM Act 24 - Interim Maintenance Granted Sameer Datta Kadam Vs Supriya Sameer Kadam Sensational Or Peculiar Cases | Leave a comment

IPC 366 – Kidnapping abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage etc

Posted on June 30, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged IPC 366 - Kidnapping abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage etc | Leave a comment

Ibrahim Mohammad Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jun 2019

Posted on June 30, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Simple to follow procedure at Telangana High Court if you want to get a case quashed in which non-compoundable offences were registered.

Ibrahim Mohammad Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jun 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198455920/

Posted in High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 – IPC 498A Quashed Due To Compromise Ibrahim Mohammad Vs State of Telangana IPC 366 - Kidnapping abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage etc | Leave a comment

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors Vs State of Gujarat and Anr on 16 Oct 2019

Posted on June 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A landmark judgment by a Full Bench of Supreme Court of India around the question,

From Para 9,

whether, after a charge-sheet is filed by the police, the Magistrate has the power to order further investigation, and if so, up to what stage of a criminal proceeding.

From Para 25,

25. Whereas it is true that Section 156(3) remains unchanged even after the 1973 Code has been brought into force, yet the 1973 Code has one very important addition, namely, Section 173(8), which did not exist under the 1898 Code. As we have noticed earlier in this judgment, Section 2(h) of the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code defines “investigation” in the same terms as the earlier definition contained in Section 2(l) of the 1898 Criminal Procedure Code with this difference – that “investigation” after the 1973 Code has come into force will now include all the proceedings under the CrPC for collection of evidence conducted by a police officer. “All” would clearly include proceedings under Section 173(8) as well. Thus, when Section 156(3) states that a Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order “such an investigation”, such Magistrate may also order further investigation under Section 173(8), regard being had to the definition of “investigation” contained in Section 2(h).

From Para 36,

36. Despite the aforesaid judgments, some discordant notes were sounded in three recent judgments. In Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibai Patel (2017) 4 SCC 177, on the facts in that case, the Appellant/Informant therein sought a direction under Section 173(8) from the Trial Court for further investigation by the police long after charges were framed against the Respondents at the culminating stages of the trial. The Court in its ultimate conclusion was correct, in that, once the trial begins with the framing of charges, the stage of investigation or inquiry into the offence is over, as a result of which no further investigation into the offence should be ordered. But instead of resting its judgment on this simple fact, this Court from paragraphs 29 to 34 resuscitated some of the earlier judgments of this Court, in which a view was taken that no further investigation could be ordered by the Magistrate in cases where, after cognizance is taken, the accused had appeared in pursuance of process being issued. In particular, Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy (supra) was strongly relied upon by the Court. We have already seen how this judgment was rendered without adverting to the definition of “investigation” in Section 2(h) of the CrPC, and cannot therefore be relied upon as laying down the law on this aspect correctly.

From Para 38,

38. There is no good reason given by the Court in these decisions as to why a Magistrate’s powers to order further investigation would suddenly cease upon process being issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri (supra), Samaj Parivartan Samudaya (supra), Vinay Tyagi (supra), and Hardeep Singh (supra); Hardeep Singh (supra) having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate’s nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases mid-way through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding, as was held in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi (supra). Therefore, to the extent that the judgments in Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel (supra), Athul Rao (supra) and Bikash Ranjan Rout (supra) have held to the contrary, they stand overruled. Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361 and Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 129 also stand overruled.

From Para 43,

43. We, therefore, set aside the impugned High Court judgment insofar as it states that post-cognizance the Magistrate is denuded of power to order further investigation.

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors Vs State of Gujarat and Anr on 16 Oct 2019

Citations : [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1346], [(2019) 17 SCC 1], [AIR 2019 SC 5233], [2020(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1], [(2019) 14 SCALE 1]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/131202146/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5da99d013321bc410549721e

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/vinubhai-haribhai-malaviya-and-ors-versus-the-state-of-gujarat-and-anr

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 156(3) - Any Magistrate Empowered u/s 190 May Order Such an Investigation as above-mentioned CrPC 173(8) - Magistrate can Order Further Investigation Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Overruling Judgment Reportable Judgement or Order Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors Vs State of Gujarat and Anr | Leave a comment

Kishanvihari Sharma Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors

Posted on June 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Two vital and interesting legal questions of interpretation have reached a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High court.

On 09 Jun 2021,

The Court framed the questions that need determination

(1) As to whether the provision of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be invoked by accused alleging improper/delayed investigation or not ?
(2) As to whether the provision of Section 161 Cr.P.C. providing for examination of witnesses by the police can include examination of accused also or not, only for the purpose of ascertaining the truth and not for recording confession ?

Kishanvihari Sharma Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 09 Jun 2021

On 24 Jun 2021,

Noting from the submissions of the rival counsels, the Bench held that there are conflicting decision from the Supreme Court on the legal points for determination and so opened up the questions to the entire Bar and sought assistance from the Bar Association.

Kishanvihari Sharma Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 24 Jun 2021

On first week of Aug 2021,

Posted in High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 156(3) - Any Magistrate Empowered u/s 190 May Order Such an Investigation as above-mentioned CrPC 161 - Examination of Witnesses By Police Kishanvihari Sharma Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors Vs State of Gujarat and Anr Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

S.Gopal Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 11 Jul 1996

Posted on June 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

This a landmark judgment from a Division bench of the Supreme Court around section 2, 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.

Definition of Dowry and the offence of Demanding Dowry

The definition of the term ’dowry’ under Section 2 of the Act shows that any property or valuable security given or “agreed to be given” either directly or indirectly by one party to the marriage to the other party to the marriage “at or before or after the marriage” as a “consideration for the marriage of the said parties” would become ’dowry’ punishable under the Act. Property or valuable security so as to constitute ’dowry’ within the meaning of the Act must therefore be given or demanded “as consideration for the marriage”.

Section 4 of the Act aims at discouraging the very “demand” of “dowry” as a ’Consideration for the marriage’ between the parties thereto and lays down that if any person after the commencement of the Act, “demands”, directly or indirectly, from the parents or guardians of a ’bride’ or ’bridegroom’, as the case may be, any ’dowry’, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.5,000/- or with both.

Thus, it would be seen that section 4 makes punishable the very demand of property or valuable security as a consideration for marriage, which demand, if satisfied, would constitute the graver offence under section 3 of the Act punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry whichever is more.

The definition of the expression ’dowry’ contained in Section 2 of the Act cannot be confined merely to the ’demand’ of money, property or valuable security ’made at or after the performance of marriage’ as is urged by Mr. Rao. The legislature has in its wisdom while providing for the definition of ’dowry’ emphasised that any money, property or valuable security given, as a consideration for marriage, ’before, at or after the marriage would be covered by the expression ’dowry’ and this definition as contained in Section 2 has to be read wherever the expression ’dowry’ occurs in the Act. Meaning of the expression ’dowry’ as commonly used and understood is different than the peculiar definition thereof under the Act. Under Section 4 of the Act, mere demand of ’dowry’ is sufficient to bring home the offence to an accused. Thus, any “demand” of money, property or valuable security made from the bride or her parents or other relatives by the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives or vice-versa would fall within the mischief of ’dowry’ under the Act where such demand is not properly referable to any legally recognised claim and is consideration of marriage. Marriage in this context would include a proposed marriage also more particularly where the non-fulfilment of the “demand of dowry” leads to the ugly consequence of the marriage not taking place at all. The expression ’dowry’ under the Act must be interpreted in the sense which the Statute wishes to attribute to it. Mr. P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel referred to various dictionaries for the meaning of ’dowry’, ’bride’ and ’bridegroom’ and on the basis of those meanings submitted that ’dowry’ must be construed only as such property, goods or valuable security which is given to a husband by and on behalf of the wife at marriage and any demand made prior to marriage would not amount to dowry. We cannot agree. Where definition has been given in a statute itself, it is neither proper nor desirable to look to the dictionaries etc. to find out the meaning of the expression. The definition given in the statute is the determinative- factor. The Act is a piece of social legislation which aims to check the growing menace of the social evil of dowry and it makes punishable not only the actual receiving of dowry but also the very demand of dowry made before or at the time or after the marriage where such demand is referable to the consideration of marriage. Dowry as a quid pro for marriage is prohibited and not the giving of traditional presents to the bride or the bride groom by friends and relatives. Thus, voluntary presents given at or before or after the marriage to the bride or the bridegroom, as the case may be, of a traditional nature, which are given not as a consideration for marriage but out of love, affection on regard, would not fall within the mischief of the expression ’dowry’ mare punishable under the Act.

On the point of Interpretation of Statutes

It is a well known rule of interpretation of statutes that the text and the context of the entire Act must be looked into while interpreting any of the expressions used in a statute. The courts must look to the object which the statute seeks to achieve while interpreting any of the provisions of the Act. A purposive approach for interpreting the Act is necessary. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with Mr. Rao that it is only the property or valuable security given at the time of marriage which would bring the same within the definition of ’dowry’ punishable under the Act, as such an interpretation would be defeating the very object for which the Act was enacted. Keeping in view the object of the Act, “demand of dowry” as a consideration for a proposed marriage would also come within the meaning of the expression dowry under the Act. If we were to agree with Mr. Rao that it is only the demand made at or after marriage which is punishable under Section 4 of the Act, Some serious consequences, which the legislature wanted to avoid, are bound to follow. Take for example a case where the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives make a ’demand’ of dowry during marriage negotiations and later on after bringing the bridal party to the bride’s house find that the bride or her parents or relative have not met the earlier ’demand’ and call off the marriage and leave the bride house should they escape the punishment under the Act. The answer has to be an emphatic ’no’. It would be adding insult to injury if we were to countenance that their action would not attract the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Such an interpretation would frustrate the very object of the Act and would also run contrary to the accepted principles relating to the interpretation of statutes.

S.Gopal Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 11 Jul 1996

Citations : [1996 AD SC 5 229], [1996 AIR SC 2184], [1996 ALD CRI 2 926], [1996 ALT CRI 2 418], [1996 BLJR 2 1329], [1996 CRILJ 3237], [1996 CRIMES SC 3 35], [1997 DMC SC 2 100], [1996 JT SC 6 268], [1996 RCR CRIMINAL 3 153], [1996 SCALE 5 78], [1996 SCC 4 596], [1996 SUPP SCR 3 439], [1996 SCC CRI 792], [1996 OLR SC 2 229]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1213429/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ace1e4b014971140fef2

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to DP Act 2 - Definition of Dowry DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 4 - Penalty for Demanding Dowry Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted Reportable Judgement or Order S.Gopal Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

Netai Ghosh and Anr Vs State of West Bengal on 21 Jun 2021

Posted on June 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on the Apex Court here, it was held that Voluntary gifts are not dowry. Conversely, which idiot would say that, at marriage, he is giving demanded dowry and which idiot will say openly that I am taking demanded dowry. Haha… Good one!

From Para 25,

25. Under Section 4 of the Act, mere demand of dowry is not sufficient to bring home the offence to an accused. Thus, any demand of money, property or valuable security made from the bride or her parents or other relatives by the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives or vice versa would fail within the mischief of “dowry” under the Act where such demand is not properly referable to any legally recognized claim and is relatable only to the consideration of marriage. Dowry as a quid pro quo for marriage is prohibited and not the giving of traditional presents to the bride or the bride groom by friends and relatives. Thus, voluntary presents given at or before or after the marriage to the bride or the bridegroom, as the case may be, of a traditional nature, which are given not as a consideration for marriage but out of love, affection on regard, would not fall within the mischief of the expression ‘dowry’ made punishable under the Act. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Gopal Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1996 SC 2084 may be relied on in support of the above observation.

Netai Ghosh and Anr Vs State of West Bengal on 21 Jun 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37558025/

Posted in High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged DP Act 2 - Gifts Are Not Dowry Netai Ghosh and Anr Vs State of West Bengal S.Gopal Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Punjab on 28 May 2021

Posted on June 18, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on Satbir Singh case here, a 3-judge bench comprising the CJI N.V. Ramana, the appellant was held liable for the offence of 304B IPC>

Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Punjab on 28 May 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Punjab IPC 304B - Dowry death Reportable Judgement or Order Satbir Singh and Anr Vs State of Haryana | Leave a comment

Satbir Singh and Anr Vs State of Haryana on 28 May 2021

Posted on June 18, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A Division bench of the Apex Court passed these guidelines to the Judges trying the 304 IPC cases.

From Para 36,

36. At the cost of repetition, the law under Section 304B, IPC read with Section 113B, Evidence Act can be summarized below:
i. Section 304B, IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.
ii. The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304B, IPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113B, Evidence Act operates against the accused.
iii. The phrase “soon before” as appearing in Section 304B, IPC cannot be construed to mean ‘immediately before’. The prosecution must establish existence of “proximate and live link” between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives.
iv. Section 304B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The reason for such non categorization is due to the fact that death occurring “otherwise than under normal circumstances” can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental.
v. Due to the precarious nature of Section 304B, IPC read with 113B, Evidence Act, Judges, prosecution and defence should be careful during conduction of trial.
vi. It is a matter of grave concern that, often, Trial Courts record the statement under Section 313, CrPC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense. It ought to be noted that the examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it based on the fundamental principle of fairness. This aforesaid provision incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice “audi alteram partem” as it enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on the court to question the accused fairly, with care and caution.
vii. The Court must put incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his response. A duty is also cast on the counsel of the accused to prepare his defense since the inception of the Trial with due caution, keeping in consideration the peculiarities of Section 304B, IPC read with
Section 113B, Evidence Act.
viii. Section 232, CrPC provides that, “If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of  acquittal”. Such discretion must be utilized by the Trial Courts as an obligation of best efforts.
ix. Once the Trial Court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per the provisions of Section 232, CrPC, it must move on and fix hearings specifically for ‘defence evidence’, calling upon the accused to present his defense as per the procedure provided under Section 233, CrPC, which is also an invaluable right provided to the accused.
x. In the same breath, Trial Courts need to balance other important considerations such as the right to a speedy trial. In this regard, we may caution that the above provisions should not be allowed to be misused as delay tactics.
xi. Apart from the above, the presiding Judge should follow the guidelines laid down by this Court while sentencing and imposing appropriate punishment.
xii. Undoubtedly, as discussed above, the menace of dowry death is increasing day by day. However, it is also observed that sometimes family members of the husband are roped in, even though they have no active role in commission of the offence and are residing at distant places. In these cases, the Court need to be cautious in its approach.

Satbir Singh and Anr Vs State of Haryana on 28 May 2021

Citations :

Other Sources:

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to IPC 304B - Dowry death Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed Landmark Case Reportable Judgement or Order Satbir Singh and Anr Vs State of Haryana | Leave a comment

Bonigi Anandaiah Vs State of AP and Ors

Posted on June 17, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Bonigi Anandaiah was a simpleton Ayurvedic Practitioner from Nellore District who used to prepare and administer Ayurveda medicine for COVID-related/induced difficulties. AP Government leaders wanted laid a claim for this medicines, and wanted to piggy-ride on the popularity of Bonigi Anandaiah and make some Crores in the process. Anandaiah had to approach AP High Court, like many others, for relief from such harassment.

2021-05-31

The medicines P, F and L are allowed by AP High Court.

Bonigi Anandaiah Vs State of AP and Ors on 31 May 2021

2021-06-03

The medicine K is also allowed by AP High Court and the AP Government was ordered not to interfere in his work.

Bonigi Anandaiah Vs State of AP and Ors on 03 Jun 2021

 


Index of YCP Government atrocities listed here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Bonigi Anandaiah Vs State of AP and Ors COVID-19 Cases Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older 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
idf Israel Defense Forces @idf ·
16h

Yonatan Samerano was murdered and kidnapped during the Oct. 7 Massacre by an @UNRWA worker.

Yesterday, his body was recovered alongside the bodies of SSGT Shay Levinson, and Ofra Keidar in Gaza.

Where is the world’s outrage?

Reply on Twitter 1937204678606848216 Retweet on Twitter 1937204678606848216 1185 Like on Twitter 1937204678606848216 4398 X 1937204678606848216
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
yashtdp_ Yash @yashtdp_ ·
23 Jun

నరసరావుపేటలో యువత పోరు అంటూ నాటకాలు వేస్తున్న పేటీఎం కుక్కల్ని చితకబాదిన ఏపీ పోలీసులు..👏💪
#Yuvathaporu #Narasaraopet

Reply on Twitter 1937057195713265893 Retweet on Twitter 1937057195713265893 323 Like on Twitter 1937057195713265893 1588 X 1937057195713265893
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
osint613 Open Source Intel @osint613 ·
14h

Trump: “Iran has officially responded to our obliteration of their nuclear facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered. There have been 14 missiles fired — 13 were knocked down, and 1 was ‘set free’ because it was headed in a…

Reply on Twitter 1937238782568464825 Retweet on Twitter 1937238782568464825 125 Like on Twitter 1937238782568464825 996 X 1937238782568464825
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
spectatorindex The Spectator Index @spectatorindex ·
14h

BREAKING: Trump thanks Iran for giving 'early notice' of its 'very weak response'

Reply on Twitter 1937238841561350369 Retweet on Twitter 1937238841561350369 900 Like on Twitter 1937238841561350369 7118 X 1937238841561350369
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Dhaval Rajendrabhai Soni Vs Bhavini Dhavalbhai Soni and Ors on 04 Feb 2011 June 22, 2025
  • Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025 June 17, 2025
  • V.Rajesh Vs S.Anupriya on 04 Jun 2025 June 16, 2025
  • Bal Manohar Jalan Vs Sunil Paswan and Anr on 30 Jun 2014 June 8, 2025
  • Bilal Ahmad Ganaie Vs Sweety Rashid and Ors on 11 May 2023 June 8, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (2,689 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (2,217 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (1,983 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,595 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (1,419 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (1,169 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (1,050 views)
  • State of AP Vs Basa Nalini Manohar and Ors on 23 Dec 2024 (872 views)
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 (800 views)
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 (776 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (402)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (372)Landmark Case (368)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (367)1-Judge Bench Decision (293)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (273)Work-In-Progress Article (216)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (97)Sandeep Pamarati (93)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (77)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (68)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (59)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (58)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)CrPC 482 - Quash (39)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (39)Legal Terrorism (38)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (716)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (318)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (179)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (141)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (106)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (55)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (50)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (50)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (49)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (43)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (42)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (35)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (23)

Recent Comments

  • Risha Bhatnagar on Pitchika Lakshmi Vs Pichika Chenna Mallikaharjuana Rao on 24 Dec 2012
  • ShadesOfKnife on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • kanwal Kishore Girdhar on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • SUBHASH KUMAR BANSAL on Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • June 2025 (10)
  • 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

  • BGW (Baghdad) on 2025-07-03 July 3, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 3, 03:00 - 05:30 UTCJun 12, 23:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BGW (Baghdad) datacenter on 2025-07-03 between 03:00 and 05:30 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]
  • NJF (Najaf) on 2025-07-03 July 3, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 3, 03:00 - 05:30 UTCJun 12, 23:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in NJF (Najaf) datacenter on 2025-07-03 between 03:00 and 05:30 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]
  • BSR (Basra) on 2025-07-03 July 3, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 3, 03:00 - 05:30 UTCJun 12, 23:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BSR (Basra) datacenter on 2025-07-03 between 03:00 and 05:30 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 212.57.126.100 | SD June 23, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 51 | First: 2025-06-23 | Last: 2025-06-23
  • 180.178.47.195 | SD June 23, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 120 | First: 2025-05-17 | Last: 2025-06-23
  • 162.248.100.196 | S June 23, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 78 | First: 2025-03-02 | Last: 2025-06-23
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 5943 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel