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

Domestic Violence Judgments

Posted on December 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list of Judgments under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and various facets of violence/cruelty within Matrimonial relationships under various Statutes even before this Act. Life Cycle of a Domestic Violence case under PWDV Act 2005 here.

Bare Act (along with Statement of Objects and Reasons) is here and Rules are here. A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed guidelines to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.

 

1971-1980

  1. Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs Sucheta Narayan Dastane on 19 March, 1975 [Definition of Mental Cruelty; Burden of Proof; Proof beyond reasonable doubt; Condonation of Cruelty]

 

 

1981-1990

 

1991-2000

  1. V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 [defined the meaning of Mental Cruelty with respect to Divorce petition]

 

 

2001-2005

  1. MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and Ors on 27 August 2001 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about Interlocutory Order]

 

2006-2010

  1. Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another on 7 July, 2006 (Right to Marry a person of one’s choice)
  2. S.R. Batra and Anr Vs Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006 (Supreme Court defined ‘Shared Household‘)
  3. Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007 (Mental Cruelty defined)
  4. Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 16 September, 2008 [BomHC: Before granting an interim relief under sub-section 1, an opportunity of being heard is required to be granted to the respondent.]
  5. V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs Bindu V on 2 Dec 2009 ()
  6. Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009 [KarHC: Audi Alterum Partem, Magistrate must conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before Interim Maintenance]
  7. Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010 (Delhi High Court)
  8. Jovita Olga Ignesia Mascarenhase Coutinho Vs Rajan Maria Coutinho and Anr on 24 Aug 2010 (BHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties)
  9. Rachna Kathuria Vs Ramesh Kathuria on 30 August, 2010 (DelHC: From my favorite judge but bad judgment; deny maintenance in DVC as there was maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC)
  10. Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat on 21 October, 2010 [GujHC: Since wife was already getting maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, Court denied interim maintenance in DVC]

 

 

2011-2015

  1. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011 (Women can also be made respondents)
  2. Dhaval Rajendrabhai Soni Vs Bhavini Dhavalbhai Soni and Ors on 04 Feb 2011 [GHC: Custody cannot be given to non-custodial parents under DV Act; Only visitation permissible to non-custodial parent]
  3. Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
  4. V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012 (DV Conduct of parties prior to PWDV Act are to be considered; Mental Cruelty)
  5. Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and Ors on 25 September, 2012 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  6. Deoki Panjhiyara Vs Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and Anr on 12 Dec 2012 [SC: Unless there is a declaration of nullity/void of the marriage by a competent Court or authority, a aggrieved person can take advantage of benefits under DV Act.]
  7. Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013 (Quashing of false DVC on relatives of husband)
  8. Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013 (PHHC: appearance of respondents disposed off)
  9. Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  10. Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013 (SC: No relationship in the nature of marriage, no DV can apply, No maintenance)
  11. Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  12. Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami & ors on 05 May 2014 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children]
  13. Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014 (KerHC: Dispose within 3 months)
  14. Santosh Sashkant Dhonde Vs Sarika Santosh Dhonde and Ors on 11 September, 2014 [BomHC: Hearing before Interim Orders]
  15. Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014 (JMFC Court, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh)
  16. A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  17. P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  18. Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015 (APHC: 2 grounds for quashing a DV Case, No shared household, any other case dismissed on same allegations; overruled by SC in Prabha Tyagi here)
  19. Boddu Anjali and Anr Vs Boddu Annapoornamma and Ors on 17 June, 2015 [Ongole JCJC:]
  20. Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015 (APHC: If any application is filed under Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice or under Section 126(2) or Section 205 to represent through special vakalat or through advocate or for one to represent others as the case may be, the learned Magistrate shall entertain, hear and pass appropriate orders granting the same with necessary conditions)
  21. Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
  22. Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015 (Dipak Misra says, Judicially separated folks are also within the ambit of Aggrieved person)

2016-2020

  1. Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016 (Court can allow amendments to complaint/petition, before cognizance of same is taken by Court)
  2. Prakash Nagardas Dubal-Shaha Vs Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors on 22 April 2016 (Unsuccessful divorce proceedings cannot adversely affect the maintainability of DVC)
  3. Monojit Banerjee Vs Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016 [KarHC: Hold an inquiry and then recorded finding as to grant interim relief or not]
  4. Hiral P Harsora and Ors Vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors on October 6, 2016 [Supreme Court strikes down words ‘adult male‘ from the definition of Respondent u/s 2(q) and also the proviso to sec 2(q)]
  5. Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P and Anr on 27 Oct 2016 [AllHC: A Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr P C against a judgment and order passed by the Court of Sessions under
    Section 29 of the Act, 2005 is maintainable]
  6. Yadlapalli Mary Mani Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2016 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  7. Girish Kumar Suneja Vs CBI on 13 Jul 2017 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about final, intermediate and Interlocutory Orders]
  8. Manmohan Attavar Vs Neelam Manmohan Attavar on 14 July, 2017 (SC: ‘Domestic Relationship’ Necessary To Permit A Party To Occupy ‘Shared Household’)
  9. Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 July, 2017 (MadHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
  10. Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha on 3 August, 2017 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  11. Jallarapu Laxman Rao Vs Jallarapu Pedda Venkateswarlu on 1 November, 2017 (AP HC: No Revision u/s 397/401 CrPC, as Sec 29 PWDV Act provides Revision/Appeal)
  12. Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018 (RajHC: Dispose within 2 months)
  13. S Vs J on 17 Apr 2018 (DHC: Frame issues after hearing both parties)
  14. Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 04 Jul 2018 (HPHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children)
  15. Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018 [DHC: no pre-condition can be laid before receiving Appeal/Revision such as deposit maintenance amount]
  16. Lalita Toppo Vs State of Jharkhand on 30 October 2018 (Live-in partner can also file DV case)
  17. Shalu Ojha and Prashant Ojha case (File income affidavit as Prescribed in Kusum Sharma)
  18. Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors on 28 January, 2019 (SC: No DV, No Reliefs)
    • Upheld Abhijit Saha and Ors Vs Sangita Saha on 17 September, 2015 (CalHC: No DV, No Reliefs)
  19. Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @ Sharuti on 08 April 2019 (BIL pays interim maintenance)
  20. Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019 (PatHC: Dispose DVC in 6 weeks)
  21. Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019 (SC: No allegations of domestic violence; No shared household)
  22. NS Leelavathi Vs R Shilpa Brunda on 11 December, 2019 (Karnataka High Court)
  23. Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
  24. N.Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 Jul 2020 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
  25. Latha.P.C and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 15 Sep 2020 (482 CrPC against DVC is not maintainable; Magistrate u/s 28(2) can apply judicial mind of Preliminary objections)
  26. Afia Rasheed Khan Vs Mazharuddin Ali Khan and Anr on 10 Oct 2022 (SC: Upheld BHC Judgment stating casual visits/stays do not qualify as temporary stay)
  27. Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (SC: Overruled SR Batra judgment regd Shared Household concept; but also emphasized on the alternate accommodation)
  28. S.Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner on 15 Dec 2020 ()

 

2021-2025

  1. Dr.P.Pathmanathan and Ors Vs V.Monica and Anr on 18 Jan 2021 ()
  2. Masood Khan Vs. Millie Hazarika on 04 Mar 2021 (482 CrPC against DVC is maintainable as per Satish Chander)
  3. Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021 (AllHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
  4. Puttaraju Vs Shivakumari on 01 Apr 2021 (MHC: Time limitation applies only for offence u/s 31 but not for the application u/s 12 of PWDV Act 2005)
  5. Robarto Nieddu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 20 Nov 2021 (RajHC: non-citizen women residing in India temporarily also are classified as ‘aggrieved person’)
  6. Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021 (MadHC: Dispose within 2 months)
  7. Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (DHC: Daughter-in-law can be evicted but an alternate accommodation must be provided)
  8. Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022 (BHC: Relatives who have no shared house-holding can also be respondents as per proviso to Sec 2(q))
    • Ali Hamid Daruwala Vs Nahida Rishad Cooper and Anr on 28 Feb 2023 (BHC: Relying on Prabha Tyagi, BHC held that no shared householding requirement is necessary)
  9. Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022 (TelHC: Dispose in 60 days)
  10. Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022 [SC: Limitation does not apply to Sec 12 applications under PWDV Act]
  11. Bharti Anand Vs Sushant Anand and Ors on 26 Apr 2022 [DelHC: Mere fleeting or casual visits/living, without permanency, at different places shall not make it a shared household]
  12. Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (SC: DIR is not mandatory; No shared holding required)
  13. Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022 (KarHC: Dispose DVC within 2 weeks)
  14. Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022 (BomHC: Dispose DVC within 3 months)
  15. P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Directions issued regd appearance of respondents)
  16. Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Dispose DVC in 1 month)
  17. Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (JKHC: After WS, Magistrate may dismiss the DVC and cancel any interim orders passed)
  18. Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022 (APHC: Disclose previous maintenance cases)
  19. Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (APHC: My Own case: Disposal of DVC in 60 days)
  20. S Anandanatesan Vs P Hemalatha on 23 Nov 2022 [MadHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
  21. Rajesh and Anr Vs Station House Officer and Ors on 05 Dec 2022 [KerHC: the existence of a domestic relationship between the complainant and the respondent is the sine qua non for seeking relief under the DV Act]
  22. Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023 [KarHC: Rental amount in lieu of accommodation in shared household can be given]
  23. Bhawna Vs Bhay Ram and Ors on 17 Feb 2023 [SC: No costs can be imposed on DV complainant for not proceeding with trial]
  24. Bhanu Kiran Vs Rahul Khosla and Ors on 28 Feb 2023 (PHHC: Interim Orders passed by Magistrate are appealable. Sessions Court can pass Interim Orders)
  25. Abhishek Agarwala and Anr Vs Smti Komal Poddar on 01 Mar 2023 (MegHC: Don’t insist on appearance of Respondents on each and every adjournment)
  26. Murlidhar Vs Sangita on 09 Mar 2023 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
  27. Kavitha M Vs Raghu on 16 Mar 2023 [KarHC: No need to conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before passing Interim reliefs; Over rules Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009]
  28. Sumeet Vs Himani Sumeet Ninave Nee on 29 Mar 2023 [BomHC: DV allegedly committed outside India can also be tried by Indian Courts]
  29. Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023 [KarHC: No Strict proof of marriage required; No validity of marriage to be checked]
  30. Jaspal Kaur alias Pinki and Ors Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 24 Apr 2023 [Relies on Kunapareddy, Kamatchi, ]
  31. Sanjeev Kumar and Ors Vs Sushma Devi on 01 Jun 2023 [HimHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties]
  32. Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023 [DelHC: Stay on Interim Maintenance Order without any pre-condition; relied on Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018]
  33. Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023 [KarHC: No maintenance to idle sitting wife]
  34. Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023 [APHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
  35. Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable]
  36. Ashwini Pradhan Vs UOI and Anr on 08 Aug 2023 [MPHC: Sections 21 and 31 of PWDV Act are not unconstitutional]
  37. M.R.Somasundaram and Ors Vs B Rahini and Anr on 12 Dec 2023 [MadHC: Approach the Magistrate Court itself and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues]
  38. Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi Vs Aneesa and Anr on 13 Dec 2023 [KarHC: A protection order under DV Act does not include the order of granting monetary relief of maintenance under Section 20 of the D.V. Act]
  39. Kinjal Jayesh Mehta Vs Disha Jimit Sanghvi and Anr on 14 Feb 2024 [BomHC: Mere casual visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household]
  40. Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024 [Interim Maintenance granted]
  41. Palaparthi Shebha and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 16 Jul 2024 [APHC: Interim maintenance order is made effective from the date of petition and not from date of Order]
  42. Krishnawati Devi and 6 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 22 Jan 2025 [AllHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members; Verify shared household condition satisfied or not before issuing notices; Dispose within 60 days]
  43. Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025 [APHC: Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
  44. Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 [SC: DVC proceedings quash for same allegations under Article 142 of Constitution]
  45. Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 [SC: there is no requirement for the personal presence/appearance of any party in the proceedings under the DV Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences]
  46. Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025 [Landmark judgment to rectify baseless Orders of maintenance by Family Court judges in Karnataka]
  47. Abhijit Ankush Shelke and Ors Vs Shubhangi Abhijit Shelke and Anr on 09 May 2025 [SC: Voice sample may be compelled as per Sec 28(2) of PWDV Act and Article 20(3) will not apply]
  48. Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs Vidhi Rawal on 19 May 2025 [SC: High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) or orders passed in accordance with Sections 18 to 23 of the DV Act, 2005]

 

 

2026-2030

  1. Deepak Gangadhar Dadge Vs Vijaya and Anr on 17 Jan 2026 [BHC: No suo moto perjury proceedings initiated]
  2. Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026
  3. Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025 [CalHC : A wife can file a DV Act case from her temporary residence]
  4. Dinesh kumar Vs Neeti and Ors on 4 Apr 2026

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Post Views: 2,280
Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to No Shared Household Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 PWDV Act Sec 12 - Domestic Violence Application to Magistrate PWDV Act Sec 12 - Not Made Out PWDV Act Sec 12(5) - Dispose In 60 Days PWDV Act Sec 29 - No pre-condition to Deposit Maintenance Arrears Summary Post

NS Leelavathi Vs R Shilpa Brunda on 11 December, 2019

Posted on December 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

No Shared household. DVC is not maintainable.

NS Leelavathi Vs R Shilpa Brunda on 11 December, 2019

Citation:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70402378/


The index page is here.

Post Views: 141
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged No Shared Household NS Leelavathi Vs R Shilpa Brunda

Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 15 November, 2018

Posted on December 16, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Honorabe CJI Justice S.A. Bobde (as he is called) has observed this to be a Mala Fide Untenable Maliciously Instituted Case Solely Intended to Harass appellants.

Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 15 November, 2018

Citations: 2018 SCC Online SC 2447, 2019 (1) PLJR (SC) 215

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14567786/


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

Post Views: 71
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr Discharge does not Prohibit Quash Mala Fide Untenable Maliciously Instituted Case Solely Intended to Harass

Umesh Kumar Vs State of AP and Anr on 6 September, 2013

Posted on December 16, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment, Supreme Court held that, Law does not prohibit entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet even before the charges are framed or before the application of discharge is filed or even during its pendency of such application before the court concerned.

In the para 12,

12. In view thereof, if any person has forged in a letter under the name of the Samithi and forged the signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., the matter being of grave nature requires investigation and, in view of above, we cannot find fault with the action initiated against Umesh Kumar, appellant. Once criminal law is put in motion and after investigation the charge sheet is filed, it requires scrutiny in the court of law. However, before the  charges could be framed, Umesh Kumar, appellant, approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge sheet. The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C.; to prevent abuse of the process of court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and the court cannot look into  materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. Any document filed along with the petition labelled as evidence without being tested and proved, cannot be examined. Law does not prohibit entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet even before the charges are framed or before the application of discharge is filed or even during its pendency of such application before the court  concerned. The High Court cannot reject the application merely on the ground that the accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of the framing of the charge. However, the inherent power of the court should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution but can be exercised to save the accused to undergo the agony of a criminal trial. (Vide: Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 128; Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. v. Shitulh Chanchani & Anr. AIR 1998 SC 2796; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754; and Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 437)

Umesh Kumar Vs State of AP and Anr on 6 September, 2013

Citations: [JT 2013 (12) SC 213], [2014 ALL SCR 661], [2013 AD SC 9 581], [2014 AIR SC 1106], [2014 AJR 1 350], [2014 ALD CRI 1 304], [2014 ALLCC 84 850], [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 479], [2013 JLJR 4 151], [2013 KLJ 4 334], [2013 PLJR 4 284], [2015 RLW SC 1 391], [2013 SCALE 11 28], [2013 SCC 10 591], [2014 SCC L&S 2 237], [2014 SCJ 2 209], [2013 UC 3 1918], [2014 SCC CRI 1 338], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 809], [2013 AIC 130 53], [2013 SUPREME 6 323], [2013 AIOL 584], [2013 AIR SC 6062], [2013 SLT 7 656], [2013 AIR SCW 6062]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194914590/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af3fe4b0149711415ef0

 

Post Views: 238
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Discharge does not Prohibit Quash Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order Umesh Kumar Vs State of AP and Anr

G.Sagar Suri and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 January, 2000

Posted on December 15, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment, Supreme Court has held that, there is no bar to pursue Quash at High Court under sec 482 CrPC, even when a Discharge was pending in the Trial Court under sec 239 CrPC or 245 CrPC.

It was submitted by Mr. Lalit, learned counsel for the second respondent, that the appellants have already filed an application in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate for their discharge and that this Court should not interfere in the criminal proceedings which are at the threshold. We do not think that on filing of any application for discharge, High Court Cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. In this connection, reference may be made to two decisions of this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., [1998] 5 SCC 749 and Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. v. Shitul H. Chanchani & Anr., [1998] 7 SCC 698, wherein it has been specifically held that though the Magistrate trying a case has jurisdiction to discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against them when no offence has been made out against them and still why must they undergo the agony of a criminal trial.

G.Sagar Suri and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 January, 2000

Citations: 2000 C Cr. LR(SC) 136 : JT 2000(1) SC 360, (2000)2 SCC 636, J.T. 2000 Vol. 1 page 126

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1699144/


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

Post Views: 354
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Civil Case Given Color of Criminal Case CrPC 239 - Discharge CrPC 482 - Quash Discharge does not Prohibit Quash G.Sagar Suri and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes

Ankem Madhava Rao and Anr Vs Simhadri Rama Rao and Anr on 5 October, 2015

Posted on December 15, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on the earlier two judgments here and here, Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Seetharama Murti of AP HC has noted in this judgment that,

This Court in a decision in A.P. Minerals Development Corporation Limited Hyderabad v. M/s.Trimex Minerals Pvt.Ltd., and another decision in Bhoopal Reddy and another v. K.Lakshmi Bhai and another held that the practice of marking the documents in the interlocutory application only shall be continued. It is thus obvious that the documents filed by either of the parties shall have to be marked, unless the parties specifically opt for not marking either on the ground of inadmissibility or for some other reasons of their own.

Ankem Madhava Rao and Anr Vs Simhadri Rama Rao and Anr on 5 October, 2015

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org link:


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

Post Views: 93
Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Ankem Madhava Rao and Anr Vs Simhadri Rama Rao and Anr Marking of Documents in IAs Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced Sandeep Pamarati

A.P. Minerals Development Corporation Limited Vs MS. Trimex Minerals Pvt Ltd on 21 November, 1997

Posted on December 15, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Similar to this judgment here, AP HC has delivered this judgment by the same Judge, on the necessity of marking documents even in Interlocutory Applications.

A.P. Minerals Development Corporation Limited Vs MS. Trimex Minerals Pvt Ltd on 21 November, 1997

Citations: 1998 (1) ALD 533, 1998 (1) ALT 182

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/965255/


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

Post Views: 86
Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged A.P. Minerals Development Corporation Limited Vs MS. Trimex Minerals Pvt Ltd Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Marking of Documents in IAs Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced Sandeep Pamarati

T. Bhopal Reddy and Anr Vs KR Lakshmi Bai and Anr on 6 November, 1997

Posted on December 15, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Honorable Justice Sri P. Venkatarama Reddi had delivered this judgment wherein it was held that,

9. Before parting with the case, we have to record the difficulty which we experienced to find out the nature and details of 35 documents said to have been filed by the petitioners and 118 documents said to have been filed by the respondents.

10. The learned Subordinate Judge has merely stated that the petitioners have filed 35 documents while the respondents have filed 118 documents. Probably in view of the judgment of our learned brother Mr. Justice B.K. Somasekham in G. Sambrajyam v. P. Mahalakshamim and Ors., 1995 (1) ALD 358, that there is no provision in the Civil Rules of Practice for marking the documents as exhibits at the stage of interlocutory matters, the learned Subordinate Judge has not given any mark to these documents. This led to some inconvenience to us while disposing of this appeal. In our opinion, even though Rule 115 of the Civil Rules of Practice envisages marking of exhibits adduced in evidence as ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘X’ series as the case may be during trial, the same cannot be construed so as to exclude the marking of any document in an interlocutory matter. It may be so that the Court while deciding the interlocutory application will look into the prima facie case of both sides. In that process, necessarily, each side will be depending upon certain documents which may ultimately be sought to be proved during the course of trial.

11. To visualise that the contesting parties in an interlocutory application will not be able to re!y on the documentary evidence upon which they ultimately rely in the trial would be placing the contesting party in an interlocutory application to rely only on the affidavits which the learned Judge thought would be the correct procedure, it may be so that the learned Judge was quite conscious that in spite of the fact that the affidavits cannot be the evidence as they are not included in the definition of evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, the Court may permit any affidavits to be produced under Order 19 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. That being the premise on which the learned Judge proceeded to observe that the documents cannot be given a marking, the only alternative for any trial Court which hears interlocutory applications would be to decide the prima facie case only on the strength of affidavits. At the same time, we are unable to comprehend as to how a prima facie case is established by the successful party without referring to and marking the documents.

12. It may be pointed out that a deponent of an affidavit who can be called upon to appear for cross-examination cannot be confronted with any document on which the adversory places reliance. If the documents even at that stage are not permitted to be marked, the entire cross-examination of the deponent may be a mere denial of the suggestions made. If in a particular case the deponent himself was the author of any document or a party to it, there would not be any opportunity to the opposite parly or himself to explain the circumstances under which the document was executed or to admit or deny the genuineness or otherwise of the same. No doubt, we are conscious of the fact that a document on which a particular party relies to strengthen his own case can only be admitted in the evidence during the trial of the suit. However, as observed by us supra if the same are not given any marking, both sides would be at a disadvantage to support their respective contentions even in an interlocutory application. We think that the learned Judge has not envisaged that such of the documents on which the parties relied would have to be described in extenso in the order if they were not to be marked. Further, there would be any amount of inconvenience for any appellate Court to search for a document on which the parties have relied and go through its contents, more so, if there were a large number of documents filed by the contesting parties.

13. Thus, in order to come to a prima facie conclusion, both the trial Court and the appellate Court should necessarily be able to locate the documents and know its contents to agree with either of the contentions, we may also point out that it is nowhere envisaged that the case of the contesting parties can only be decided on the affidavits and not on any other material. Thus, in the absence of any specific rule so far as marking of documents in an interlocutory stage is concerned, the Courts would not be justified in not giving any marking at all to such of the documents on which both sides would rely.

14. It is another mailer that affidavits filed by both sides are not given marking for they after all form part of the record. But to say that the documentary evidence on which the parties would ultimately rely in the suit would not be of any relevance at the time of deciding the interlocutory matters would lead to any amount of inconvenience which was in fact felt by us in disposing of the above civil miscellaneous appeal.

15. As stated earlier, we are quite conscious of the fact that the documents marked for purpose of determination of any interlocutory application cannot be treated as evidence per se but would enable the Court to prima facie come to a conclusion about the merits or demerits of the contentions advanced. For the reasons aforesaid, we disapprove the view taken by Mr. Justice Somasekhara in the case referred to supra insofar as marking of the documents in the interlocutory applications.

16. Further, in order to avoid any future difficulties, it is desirable to incorporate a rule in Civil Rules of Practice for giving a separate marking to the documents relied upon by either party in interlocutory proceedings by directing the trial Courts to mark such of the documents relied upon by the petitioners in the interlocutory applications as ‘P’ series and the documents relied upon by the respondents as ‘R’ series to avoid any difficulty in identifying the documents at a later stage of the proceedings and also during trial.

T. Bhopal Reddy and Anr Vs KR Lakshmi Bai and Anr on 6 November, 1997

Citations: [1998 (1) ALD 770], [1998 (1) ALT 292],

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/330119/


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

Post Views: 509
Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Marking of Documents in IAs Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced Sandeep Pamarati T. Bhopal Reddy and Anr Vs KR Lakshmi Bai and Anr

Ram Murti Yadav Vs State of UP and Anr on 10 December, 2019

Posted on December 15, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Ram Murti Yadav Vs State of UP and Anr on 10 December, 2019

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org link:


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

Post Views: 61
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Judiciary Antics Ram Murti Yadav Vs State of UP and Anr

Code of Criminal Procedure (Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1992

Posted on December 14, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the Second Amendment to Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, by Andhra Pradesh Government in 1992.

Code of Criminal Procedure (Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1992

AP High Court had passed a judgment based on this Amendment here which was overturned by the Apex Court here.


 

Post Views: 207
Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged Code of Criminal Procedure (Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment) Act 1992

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
anandmahindra anand mahindra @anandmahindra ·
18 Jun

I ran across this video a few days ago and couldn’t stop watching it.

It’s about something ordinary & boring, a plastic gas lighter. But it changes how one thinks about manufacturing.

That lighter in so many of our homes, holds pressurised gas. It has over 30 microscopic parts,

Reply on Twitter 2067509022723633219 Retweet on Twitter 2067509022723633219 994 Like on Twitter 2067509022723633219 4788 X 2067509022723633219
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
thebetterindia The Better India @thebetterindia ·
17 Jun

Every evening, while most people head home, Gautam Yadav begins his mission of kindness.

For the last 7 years, this daily wage worker from Berunda has been collecting leftover rotis from households and feeding nearly 300 stray animals every day. Despite facing financial

Reply on Twitter 2067283631517614204 Retweet on Twitter 2067283631517614204 122 Like on Twitter 2067283631517614204 399 X 2067283631517614204
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
alongimna Temjen Imna Along @alongimna ·
18 Jun

Ye hai Northeast meri jaan 🩵

Thank you, Lieutenant General Vikas Lakhera Ji, for reminding the nation that there is much to learn from the honesty, discipline, culture, and community spirit of the Northeastern states.

Reply on Twitter 2067431201967861969 Retweet on Twitter 2067431201967861969 461 Like on Twitter 2067431201967861969 2234 X 2067431201967861969
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
kadirodu_offl 🔱🐎 సుజత్ 🕉️☪️✝️ @kadirodu_offl ·
18 Jun

బాగ సంపాదించి అమ్మ నాన్న ని గొప్పగా చూసుకోవాలని కలలు కనే ప్రతి కొడుక్కి చివర్లో ఒక విషయం తెలుస్తుంది ..

అదే 👇 ఇది !!

ఈ విషయం తెలిసాక వాడి మనసు ఎంత ఆవేదన పడుతుందో అనుభవించిన వాడికే అర్థం అవుతుంది !!

Reply on Twitter 2067493903490851119 Retweet on Twitter 2067493903490851119 387 Like on Twitter 2067493903490851119 2463 X 2067493903490851119
Load More

Recent Posts

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

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,927 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,457 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,339 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,785 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,165 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (1,982 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,914 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,750 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (1,666 views)
  • Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025 (1,526 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (433)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (413)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (382)Landmark Case (381)1-Judge Bench Decision (362)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (293)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (66)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (61)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (753)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (328)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (186)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (164)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (93)Legal Procedure (77)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (70)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (61)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (52)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (46)Prakasam DV Cases (46)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (45)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (27)

Recent Comments

  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • KONURU VINAYKUMAR on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • ShadesOfKnife on Lifecycle Stages of a Section 498A IPC Case

Archives of SoK

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

Blogroll

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

RSS Cloudflare Status

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

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 198.62.6.49 | SD June 19, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 34 | First: 2026-06-19 | Last: 2026-06-19
  • 23.175.248.21 | S June 19, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 196 | First: 2026-04-24 | Last: 2026-06-19
  • 34.70.149.56 | SD June 19, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 9 | First: 2026-06-19 | Last: 2026-06-19
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 802 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel