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

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Zero FIR Case Laws/ Judgments

Posted on January 10, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list of judgments from Supreme Court and various High Courts and Legislative/Police Circulars, which talk about a concept called as Zero FIR, meaning register FIR first and then transfer it to appropriate Police Station in which territorial limits the alleged offence occurred. If FIR is not registered, IPC 166A proceedings can be initiated against the Police officers. More actions available here.

Case Laws or Judgments of Courts

  1. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Punati Ramulu and Ors on 19 Feb 1993
  2. Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 5 October, 1999
  3. Ramesh Kumari Vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006
  4. Bimla Rawal Vs. State on 1 January, 2008
  5. Manju Dutta Vs The State & Ors. on 29 January, 2013
  6. Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of U.P. and Ors on 12 November, 2013
  7. Umapathi S Vs State of Karnataka on 19 Sep 2019
  8. Kirti Vashisht Vs State and Ors on 29 Nov 2019

 

Legislative / Police Circulars

  1. Ministry of Home Affairs Dt: 2013-05-10 :
    2013-05-10 Registration of FIR irrespective of territorial jurisdiction and Zero FIR
  2. Ministry of Home Affairs Dt: 2015-10-12 :
    2015-10-12 Advisory Compulsory Registration FIRs
  3. DGP Office, Karnataka, Dt: 2019-11-26 :
    2019-11-26 Registration of FIR (Zero FIR)
Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged CrPC 154 - Information in Cognizable Cases IPC 166A - Public servant disobeying direction under law Zero FIR Case Laws/ Judgments Zero FIR to be Filed Investigated and Transferred | Leave a comment

Zaid Pathan and Ors Vs State of M.P. on 22 Dec 2020

Posted on January 9, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Even though the MP High Court held the law point correctly, IMHO, the said FIR which was saved by this Court, has no future, unless it was treated as a FIR registered u/s 154 CrPC, which is what the case is here.

From Para 15 16

15/ The submission of counsel for the petitioners is that as per the procedure prescribed in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., for the purpose of the offence under Section 188 of the IPC a public servant is required to file a complaint before the competent court and, therefore, the FIR cannot be registered.
16/ Such an argument advanced by counsel for the petitioners is devoid of any merit. A bare reading of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. reveals that the provisions contained in the sub-section are attracted at the stage of taking cognizance. There is no bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of registration of FIR, therefore, FIR for an offence under Section 188 of the IPC can be registered by the police and after investigation on the basis of the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, a competent public servant can file the complaint before the concerned court. What is barred under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. is that after investigating the offence under Section 188 of the IPC, the police officer cannot file a final report in the Court and the Court cannot take cognizance on that final report, as at that stage the bar contained in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. comes
into operation.

Zaid Pathan and Ors Vs State of M.P. on 22 Dec 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/zaid-pathan-and-others-vs-state-of-m-p

Posted in High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 195 - Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants or for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence IPC 188 - Disobedience to Order duly Promulgated by Public Servant Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order Zaid Pathan and Ors Vs State of M.P. | Leave a comment

Mukesh @ Lakshminarayan Vs State of M.P. on 31 Dec 2020

Posted on January 9, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Madhya Pradesh held illegal the acts of Notaries in the State, as follows.

Not only the accused persons who have conspired in performing the forged marriage of the complainant, but the Notary who executed the marriage agreement is also equally responsible in this case. The job of the Notary is defined under the Notary Act. He is not supposed to perform the marriage by executing documents. Had he properly guided and refused to execute the marriage agreement to the complainant, then the present offence would not have been committed. This Court is repeatedly receiving the cases of forged marriage performed by the Notary, therefore, the Law Department of the State is required to look into these matters as to how the Notaries and Oath Commissioners are involving themselves in executing the document in respect of the marriage, divorce, etc, which are not permissible under the law. Neither the Notary is authorised to perform the marriage nor competent to execute the divorce deed. Therefore, strict guidelines are required to be issued to the Notaries and oath commissioners for not executing such type of deed, failing which their licence would be terminated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Law Department of State of M.P. For taking action in the matter.

Mukesh @ Lakshminarayan Vs State of M.P. on 31 Dec 2020

Citations :

Other sources :

 

Posted in High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Mukesh @ Lakshminarayan Vs State of M.P. Notary is not Authorised to Perform the Marriage nor Competent to Execute the Divorce Deed | Leave a comment

IPC 188 – Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant

Posted on January 9, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of
obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;
and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.—It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged IPC 188 - Disobedience to Order duly Promulgated by Public Servant | Leave a comment

N.Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 Jul 2020

Posted on January 6, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on Inderjit Singh Grewal here, that PWDV Act is subject to CrPC 468, so held that a complaint filed after 1 year is time barred, hence the DVC is quashed by Madras High Court.

Note: On the request of respondent-wife, I have removed the name and address details of the litigants on page-1 of the judgment below. No other modifications were made to it.

N.Prasad-Vs-Harithalakshmi-on-20-Jul-2020(1)

Citations : [2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1767]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/108935797/

Madras HC | Limitation provided under CrPC is applicable to complaints under Domestic Violence Act: Court rejects complaint filed after lapse of 1 yr 10 months


This judgment is overruled in Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022


Index is here.

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab and Anr N. Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi Overruled Judgment Perverse Order/Judgment PWDV Act - 1 Year Limitation From Date Of Last Offence PWDV Act - DV Case Quashed | Leave a comment

Evidence Act Sec 106 – Burden of Proving Fact Especially Within Knowledge

Posted on January 6, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

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

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged Evidence Act 106 - Burden of Proving Fact Especially Within Knowledge | Leave a comment

Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs State of Gujarat on 16 Dec 1977

Posted on January 6, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Definition of Circumstantial evidence established by Supreme Court in this case. This corresponds to Sec 106 of Evidence Act.

From Paras 7 and 8,

7. It is well-established that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution, must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably be considered consistent with the innocence of the accused. Even in the case of circumstantial evidence, the Court will have to bear in mind the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole. Any missing link may be fatal to the prosecution case.

8. We will first consider whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the appeal and secondly in interfering with the order of acquittal. Entertainment of the appeal by the High Court against an acquittal will be justified only under special circumstances. They exist in this case. We find that the Sessions Judge has committed a manifest error of record when he held that “there was a pool of blood in the outer room and trail of blood-stains leading from the outer room to the inner room”. We do not find a tittle of evidence, oral or documentary to substantiate the above statement in the judgment of the Sessions Judge relying on which he came to the conclusion “that the victim was stabbed in the outer room while she was running from the outer room into the inner room”. The Sessions Judge fell into a grave error by coming to this grossly erroneous conclusion absolutely unsupported by any evidence.

Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs State of Gujarat on 16 Dec 1977 (Indiankanoon)

Casemine version

Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs State of Gujarat on 16 Dec 1977 (Casemine)

Citations : [1978 AIR SC 424], [1978 GLR 19 268], [1978 SCC 1 228], [1978 SCR 2 471], [1978 CAR 57], [1978 SCC CRI 108], [1978 CRLJ SC 489], [1978 CRLR SC 72]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1083864/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abcae4b014971140d562

https://india.lawi.asia/umedbhai-jadavbhai-v-the-state-of-gujarat/

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Circumstantial Evidence - Suspicion cannot take the place of proof Evidence Act 106 - Burden of Proving Fact Especially Within Knowledge Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs State of Gujarat | Leave a comment

State of Haryana Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 15 Jan 2002

Posted on January 6, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Governments cannot be allowed to waste State Exchequer

It is an admitted fact that for construction of the Punjab portion of SYL Canal, more than Rs 560 crores have already been spent, as is apparent from Ext. P-13 and the entire money has been paid by the Government of India. It is indeed a matter of great concern that while huge amount of public exchequer has been spent in the construction of the canal and only a few portion of the canal within the territory of Punjab has not been dug, the canal is not being put to use on the mere insistence of the State of Punjab. The attitude of the State of Punjab to say the least, is wholly unreasonable, dogmatic and is against the national interest. It is equally a matter of great concern for this Court that the Central Government is taking an indifferent attitude in the matter and is only trying to while away the time, even though it continues to pay the State of Punjab substantially, even for the maintenance of the operation of canal that has already been dug.

and…

That apart, more than Rs 700 crores of public revenue cannot be allowed to be washed down the drain, when the entire portion of the canal within the territory of Haryana has already been completed and major portion of the said canal within the territory of Punjab also has been dug, leaving only minor patches within the said territory of Punjab to be completed.

Here is the casemine version

State of Haryana Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 15 Jan 2002 (Casemine)

Here is the Indiankanoon version

State of Haryana Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 15 Jan 2002

Citations : [2002 SCALE 1 238], [2002 AIR SC 303], [2002 SUPREME 1 14], [2002 SCC 2 507], [2002 AIR SC 685], [2002 AIR SCW 303]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/255258/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adaee4b0149711411f5b

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Landmark Case Misuse of Public Funds Reportable Judgement or Order Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh State of Haryana Vs State of Punjab and Anr Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

B. Srinivasa Reddy and Ors Etc Vs Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi and Ors Etc on 04 Jan 2021

Posted on January 6, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

This is hilarious. These dashes can go to any extent to get beating on their bums…

The following is the order. Hehe

The special leave petitions are dismissed. We, however, observe that in event any association of lawyers files an application for impleadment / intervention in the writ petition before the High Court, the same shall be considered by the High Court in accordance with law and without being influenced by the order impugned.

B. Srinivasa Reddy and Ors Etc Vs Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi and Ors Etc on 04 Jan 2021
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged B. Srinivasa Reddy and Ors Etc Vs Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi and Ors Etc Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

All Compensation Judgments for Motor Vehicle Accidents or other mishaps

Posted on January 4, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list of case laws (includes decisions from Supreme Court, High Courts, District Court and other bodies such as Consumer forums) regarding compensation in cases of accidental death or disability or other mishap which entitles compensation for the aggrieved. This is done under provisions under CrPC or Schemes setup by Courts/Government or under Article 21 of Constitution. Can be used to seek compensation in cases of loss of life, part/full disability, loss of reputation, loss of companionship etc.

 

  1. Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 10 March, 1981
  2. Hari Kishan & Anr Vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988
  3. Mary Angel & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 May, 1999
  4. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Meena Variyal and Ors on 2 April 2007
  5. Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel And others on 14 March, 2008
  6. In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4.06.2011 Vs UOI and Ors on 23 February 2012
  7. A.Shanmugam Vs Ariya K.R.K.M.N.P.Sangam on 27 April, 2012
  8. Md.Ajmal Md.Amir Kasab @Abu Mujahid Vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 August, 2012
  9. Ajay Kumar Bisnoi and Anr Vs MS KEI Industries Limited on 25 September 2015
  10. Mukesh & Anr Vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017
  11. Sulochana Vs Thiru. R.Sivasamy on Pronounced on 24 May, 2017
  12. Babloo Chauhan @ Dabloo Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 30 November, 2017
  13. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pawan Balram Mulchandani On 25 September, 2018
  14. Rajeev Singhal & Anr Vs MCD (East Delhi Municipal Corporation) & Anr On 27 September, 2018
  15. The State of Maharastra Vs Chandrabhan Sudam Snap on 20 December, 2018
  16. Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini Vs Inspector of Police on 02 January, 2019
  17. MS Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs Mandala Yadagari Goud and Ors on 9 April, 2019
  18. Joginder Singh and Anr Vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company on 14 August, 2019
  19. Muppa Venkateswara Rao Vs State of AP on 10 March 2020
  20. Gas leak at LG Polymers on 06 May 2020
    • Supreme Court proceedings
  21. Arun Sharma Vs State of M.P. on 02 Nov 2020

 


Index of MASTER sitemap here.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Compensation is the monetary relief awarded to a victim or the legal heirs of a deceased person for death, bodily injury, permanent disability, loss of income, medical expenses, pain and suffering, or other consequential losses arising out of a motor vehicle accident or other accidental mishaps.

Compensation claims are generally filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Sections 166 and 168 govern claim petitions and award of just compensation.

A compensation claim may be filed by:

  • The injured victim
  • The owner of damaged property
  • The legal heirs or dependents of a deceased victim
  • An authorized representative acting on behalf of the claimant

The law permits legal representatives to seek compensation even if all heirs do not jointly file the claim.

Under motor accident law:

  • Fault Liability Claims under Section 166 require proof of negligence, rash driving, or wrongful conduct by the offending vehicle.
  • No-Fault Compensation under statutory provisions allows compensation without proving negligence in specified circumstances.

Courts have repeatedly distinguished between these two remedies while assessing compensation claims.

Courts generally consider:

  • Age of the deceased or injured person
  • Monthly income and future earning potential
  • Number of dependents
  • Nature of injuries or disability
  • Medical expenses
  • Pain, suffering, and loss of amenities
  • Future treatment and rehabilitation costs

The objective is to award “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Yes. In fatal accident cases, the legal heirs, spouse, children, parents, or dependents of the deceased can file a compensation claim before MACT for:

  • Loss of dependency
  • Loss of consortium
  • Funeral expenses
  • Loss of estate
  • Future financial loss

Courts treat compensation in fatal accident cases as a welfare measure.

Yes. Victims suffering:

  • Permanent disability
  • Partial disability
  • Functional disability
  • Loss of earning capacity
  • Long-term medical complications

can claim compensation for both present and future losses.

Although an FIR, accident report, charge sheet, or police records significantly strengthen a claim, courts have held that compensation claims are decided on the basis of overall evidence and circumstances.

However, in fault-based claims under Section 166, proof of negligence remains essential. Recent MACT decisions have dismissed claims where negligence was not proved.

Depending on the facts, compensation may be payable by:

  • The insurance company
  • The vehicle owner
  • The driver
  • All of them jointly, as directed by the Tribunal

The Claims Tribunal specifies liability while passing the award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Yes. Compensation can be claimed by:

  • Pedestrians
  • Passengers
  • Cyclists
  • Occupants of other vehicles
  • Third parties injured due to negligent driving

Third-party insurance exists specifically to cover such claims.

Yes. Compensation may also be awarded in cases involving:

  • Electrocution
  • Industrial accidents
  • Building collapse
  • Fire accidents
  • Railway or public utility accidents
  • Medical negligence
  • Other actionable mishaps

Courts assess compensation based on negligence, statutory liability, or constitutional remedies.

Insurance companies may dispute liability on grounds such as:

  • Policy violations
  • No valid driving licence
  • Vehicle not insured
  • Breach of permit conditions
  • Fraud or misrepresentation

However, courts often examine whether such breaches actually contributed to the accident before denying compensation.

Yes. Courts may apply the principle of contributory negligence where both parties contributed to the accident. In such cases, compensation may be proportionately reduced rather than denied altogether.

Courts generally encourage filing claims without undue delay. While statutory limitations have evolved over time, delay alone does not automatically defeat a genuine compensation claim if properly explained.

Yes. Courts and Tribunals may grant interim or provisional compensation in deserving cases to ensure immediate financial relief to victims or dependents.

Yes. An aggrieved party may challenge a compensation award before the appellate court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the award is considered inadequate, excessive, or legally unsustainable.

The objective of compensation law is to ensure that victims or their families receive fair, just, and reasonable financial relief, helping them recover from the economic and emotional consequences of an accident.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty CrPC 250 - Compensation For Accusation Without Reasonable Cause CrPC 357 - Order to pay compensation Grant Compensation For False Prosecution Grant Compensation In Accidental Deaths Grant Compensation To Victims Of Fraud Medical College Grant Compensation To Victims Of Mob-violence | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

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

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
exsecular

exsecular

Verified account @exsecular ·
8 Nov

Chor era ( don’t forget they hired 24 lawyers against Ram mandir ) to Modi Era 🚩🚩🔥🔥🚩🚩

Reply on Twitter 2119236931808862565 Retweet on Twitter 2119236931808862565 255 Like on Twitter 2119236931808862565 892 X 2119236931808862565
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
bjp4india

BJP

Verified account @bjp4india ·
8 Nov

This never gets old... Happy Diwali to you-know-who! 😉🪔

Reply on Twitter 2119407089118302307 Retweet on Twitter 2119407089118302307 3297 Like on Twitter 2119407089118302307 23657 X 2119407089118302307
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ani

ANI

Verified account @ani ·
7 Nov

#WATCH | Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh: At Ram ki Paidi, visitor Simona from Ukraine says, "... My sister invited me. I really like everything here. I am amazed by how beautiful everything looks..."

Reply on Twitter 2119119499194675541 Retweet on Twitter 2119119499194675541 897 Like on Twitter 2119119499194675541 7121 X 2119119499194675541
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
think_andhra

Think Andhra

@think_andhra ·
8 Nov

ఢిల్లీలో చంద్రబాబు నివాసం.. జన్‌పథ్‌ 1లోని 100 ఏళ్ల చారిత్రక భవనానికి కొత్త రూపు!

#Chandrababu #1Janpath #CMResidence #LutyensDelhi #thinkandhra

Reply on Twitter 2119384437049667945 Retweet on Twitter 2119384437049667945 24 Like on Twitter 2119384437049667945 202 X 2119384437049667945

Recent Posts

  • Ravichandragouda R Patil Vs KSBC and Anr on 18 Nov 2025 November 7, 2026
  • Sushila Vs Joginder on 13 Sep 2023 November 6, 2026
  • Thangam Venkatesh Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors on 23 Oct 2026 October 29, 2026
  • Mukul Mittal Vs Sr. Superintendent at RPO Delhi on 02 Feb 2026 October 27, 2026
  • Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India and Anr on 19 Dec 2025 October 27, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 (1,279 views)
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 (942 views)
  • Surety Affidavit Format – Draft, Legal Requirements & Sample Template (818 views)
  • Application for Addition of Relevant Documents to Case Record – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (668 views)
  • Second Anticipatory Bail Application – Is It Legally Possible? Complete Strategy (601 views)
  • Sachin Arora Vs Manju Arora on 02 Jul 2026 (595 views)
  • How to Handle Hostile Witnesses in Criminal Trials – Complete Defence Strategy (568 views)
  • Ravi S Vs Sahana Devi A and Ors on 18 Jun 2026 (565 views)
  • How to File a Complaint Against an Advocate in India – A First-Timer’s Complete Guide (509 views)
  • Application for Permanent Exemption from Appearance – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (509 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (454)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (438)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (391)Landmark Case (391)1-Judge Bench Decision (386)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (304)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (102)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (72)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (71)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (63)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (44)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (43)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (43)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (773)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (193)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (170)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (97)Legal Procedure/Tool (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (72)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (60)General Study Material (56)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (55)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (48)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (45)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (29)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • Aman Kumar on Case Lifecycle Explorer – BNS s.85, DV Act and Maintenance
  • ShadesOfKnife on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • pradeep jain on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • Lawyer Sonia on Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC)
  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation

Archives of SoK

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

Blogroll

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

RSS feed: Cloudflare Status Cloudflare Status

  • SIN (Singapore) on 2026-11-23 November 23, 2026
    Nov 10, 17:41 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in SIN (Singapore) datacenter on 2026-11-23 between 18:00 and 22:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users in the affected region. For PNI / CNI customers […]
    Cloudflare Status

RSS feed: List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 150.5.149.79 | S November 10, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 13 | First: 2026-11-06 | Last: 2026-11-10
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 219 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel