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

Category: District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification

Adv Mehmood Pracha Office searched

Posted on January 15 by ShadesOfKnife

Interesting aspects learnt (for a newbie like me)!!!

Adv Mehmood Pracha Office searched_compressed
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Adv Mehmood Pracha Office searched CrPC 156(3) - Any Magistrate Empowered u/s 190 May Order Such an Investigation as above-mentioned CrPC 165 - Search by police officer CrPC 93 - When search-warrant may be issued | Leave a comment

Kusum and Anr Vs Sandeep Kumar and Ors on 04 Oct 2019

Posted on January 1 by ShadesOfKnife

A false DV case is dismissed on merits.

Kusum and Anr Vs Sandeep Kumar and Ors on 04 Oct 2019

Here are the written arguments:

Kusum and Anr Vs Sandeep Kumar and Ors Written Arguments
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Kusum and Anr Vs Sandeep Kumar and Ors PWDV Act - Dismissed On Merits | Leave a comment

Manish Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 24 Dec 2020

Posted on December 30, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A JMFC has ordered for complaint of perjury in this Judgment. Nice one…

From Para 10, 11 and 12,

10. I have accepted B summary report filed by I.O., in Crime No., 08/2020 registered at Wai police station. On that basis, in present inquiry, I come to the conclusion that informant of said crime has given false FIR at Wai police station as well false statement on oath under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Court of Justice. Therefore, it appears to me that the informant being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, but she has given false FIR as well as false statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court. The informant has given statement on oath under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wai, inspite of knowledge that the FIR lodged by her is false. Informant has lodged false FIR with intent to cause injury to the present applicant and to Bhisham Parwani, knowing that no just or lawful ground for further proceeding on the basis of that false FIR.
11. Therefore, I record my finding that Criminal Prosecution is required to be initiated against the respondent No. 2 of this application who is informant of Crime No. 08/2020 registered at Wai police station for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has prima facie committed aforesaid offences in relation to B summary proceeding before this Court. It is necessary to make mention here that there is no cogent and convincing material to proceed against respondents No. 3 to 6 for the offences mentioned above.
12. Considering all above grounds, a complaint is required to be filed against the present respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is required to authorise officer of this Court to file a written complaint on behalf of this Court against respondent No. 2 in this Court.

Manish Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 24 Dec 2020

Earlier proceedings here.

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 164 - Recording of Confessions and Statements Manish Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors Perjury - Forged Evidence or False Statements or False Affidavit Submitted Perjury Under 340 CrPC | Leave a comment

State of Telangana Vs Bodusu Naresh Yadav and Ors on 17 Dec 2019

Posted on December 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Posting this Conviction judgment only for awareness of the visitors to this site, on the focal point that, how a baseless judgment looks like. Just 24 Pages. Judgment begins around Para 18.

Enjoy !!!

State of Telangana Vs Bodusu Naresh Yadav and Ors on 17 Dec 2019
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment State of Telangana Vs Bodusu Naresh Yadav and Ors | Leave a comment

Dr Gaurav Paul Vs Dr Deepali Arora on 07 May 2016

Posted on November 25, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

All the members of the family accused of 498A IPC offence were discharged as there was no material to prosecute them.

Dr Gaurav Paul Vs Dr Deepali Arora on 07 May 2016

There was once a time when copy of complaint in a 498A IPC case was not given to accused, to exercise FIR Quash etc. Had to file RTI application to Police CPIO !!!

CIC_SS_A_2011_002037_M_77848
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations CrPC 239 - Discharged Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives Dr Gaurav Paul Vs Dr Deepali Arora No Grave Suspicion Against Accused Two Views Possible - Supicion Vs Grave Suspicion | Leave a comment

Santhosh alias Sathiyan Vs Priyanka and Ors on 23 Jan 2020

Posted on November 22, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

15 Lakhs of Compensation was granted by a City Civil Court on a Compensation Suit, against a False rape case.

Santhosh alias Sathiyan Vs Priyanka and Ors on 23 Jan 2020
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Compensation Granted For False Prosecution False Incest Or Rape Or Sexual Or Sexual Harassment Allegations Santhosh alias Sathiyan Vs Priyanka and Ors | Leave a comment

Vikas Sharma Vs Monica Parashar on 30 Sep 2016

Posted on November 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single Judge declared as follows with regards to the application of Sec 25(2) of PWDV Act 2005 and specifically, what does ‘change in circumstances’ mean.

32. I find no force in the contention of the appellant that merely filing of application under section 25 (2) of the D. V. Act would amount to a change  in the circumstances. The phrase “change in circumstances” would require that the circumstances on the basis of which any previous order was passed under this Act have undergone alteration, modification or have ceased to exist and warrant interference of the court. Hence, the contention of the appellant that merely filing an application under section 25(2) of the D. V. Act would amount to change in circumstances cannot be accepted. Moreover, if such arguments of the appellant is accepted then parties will take advantage of such interpretation and would intentionally stay away from court on a day when any order is to be passed so that after passing of the order, they would file the application under section 25(2) of the D. V. Act and would plead that mere filing of an application under section 25(2) of the D.V. Act is a change in the circumstances thereby warranting passing of orders under section 25(2) of the D. V. Act.

33. A perusal of the application under section 25(2) of the D. V. Act filed by the appellant before the trial court shows that in the said application, the appellant has nowhere mentioned that consequent to the passing of the order by which interim maintenance has been fixed, there has been any change in the circumstances which warranted filing the application under section 25(2) of the D. V. Act for modification of the previous order dated 10.04.2015.

Vikas Sharma Vs Monica Parashar on 30 Sep 2016
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Legal Procedure Explained PWDV Act Sec 25 - Change in Circumstances Vikas Sharma Vs Monica Parashar | Leave a comment

State of Maharashtra Vs Rahul Ramchandra Khedkar on 18 May 2018

Posted on April 2, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Smt. S.D. Javalgekar, Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.5) Sangli delivered this judgment.

Para 23,

23. From the above discussion, it becomes clear that, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable  doubts. Though in such offences special weightage should be given to the version of the complainant, it should also be corroborated by other supportive evidence. In absence of such evidence vague allegations of the complainant cannot be taken as true. There are many instances in society wherein females of mischievous nature spoil the family peace by making false allegations and by unnecessarily involving innocent persons in the offence. From the discussion above, I find no substance in the various allegations of the complainant. Hence, I hold that accused persons are innocent and not liable for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

State of Maharashtra Vs Rahul Ramchandra Khedkar on 18 May 2018

Citations:

Other Source links:


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

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Acquitted in IPC 498A IPC 323 Not Made Out IPC 498a Not Made Out IPC 504 Not Made Out IPC 506 Not Made Out Legal Terrorism State of Maharashtra Vs Rahul Ramchandra Khedkar | Leave a comment

State of TS Vs Pathakota Venkata Mohan Rao on 6 March, 2019

Posted on June 26, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

This is an acquittal judgment of a friend who went through the rigors of the Criminal trial of a false 498A IPC case and came out acquitted with flying colors.

Was a Discharge u/s 239 Cr.P.C., within the horizon?

I make an legal argument below to say that, this is a fit criminal case for a Discharge and list the grounds as well. Probably would have saved many years of time for both the parties and the Court. Even then, there are good number of legal weapons available to ensure, we return the favor to the false-case complainant.

This is just for academic reasons only. Not to insult the judgment of the parties involved, in their decision-making to go to face full trial.

A legal (academic) Argument for a Discharge from a Criminal case

General Assessment of Judgment: From Para 15 onwards, almost all below observations of Magistrate from the evidence of witness are the sole contents coming from witness statements under 161 CrPC as well as the contents from Original complaint/FIR/ Charge Sheet, which are sufficient to raise in Discharge Petition as contradicting and not supporting the case of the Complainant. Frankly, this shows the incompetency of the IO to arrive at ac conclusion that this case is a fit case to file B-Closure report (or he may have sold out his integrity or was routinely in that business, not sure which one)

Inconsistency in saying the marriage year.

Inconsistency in the list of places the newly wed couple went to.

As noted in Ground #1, no details around the dates of all allegations

Continuing the marital relations with A1 to the point that, despite severe allegations of physical and mental harassment, the complainant conceives a baby.

About the fact that Complainant was at her parent’s home all the while, but she claims A1 harassed her physically. How is that thing, humanly possible?

PW2 testimony (clearly in sync with his 161 Statement) is loud and clear that he is a hearsay witness

Nowhere the Security guards talk about direct knowledge/eye witness to cruelty of A1 on Complainant.

Serious lapses in the investigation of IO is vivid and regrettable. Not examining the people who could support the prosecution narrative would be looked at as incompetency

Learned APP cited judgment of Bombay High Court in a proceeding pending in Tadepalligudem Magistrate Court. This signifies that there is absolute avenue to present other state High Court judgments in current state proceedings and we do NOT need Supreme Court precedents, all the time.

Ground #1: From Para 2, Dash and Dash was given as dowry. Nice. To whom? Later accused started harassing her physically and mentally (When?) and …. and abused her in filthy language (When?) and also suspected her character (When? Any Witnesses supporting this view in their 161 CrPC Statements) and …. and accused denied paternity of child (Why? When? Any Witnesses supporting this view in their 161 CrPC Statements)

Is all the BS above, not failing 212 CrPC?

Ground #2: From Para 21, even magistrate says, the allegation in the prosecution documents are “bald and omnibus allegations by PW1, prosecution failed to adduce any specific allegation that accused harassed PW1 physically and mentally”

Ground #3: From Para 22, No specific details of dates of physical assault or injuries on the self. Magistrate observe that as per explanation (a) of section 498-A IPC, the cruelly must be such extent which drive the woman to commit suicide.

From Para 23, same point mentioned above in Ground #1 is observed by Magistrate too. With whom is the damn Dowry deposited?

Ground #4: A casual perusal at the list of exhibits/evidences marked is sufficient to hold that there was not ONE evidence brought in by Prosecution, especially the IO. Tell-tale sign of baseless case, as put forward by IO.

Given that this author has NOT perused the complete 207 CrPC documents, the assessment done hereinabove, is evident enough to say that, this case too had quite a few irrefutable legal grounds to pursue the remedy of Discharge from this false litigation u/s 239 CrPC.

It is strongly believed by the author that, every second lost in futile trial of a case, is a undeniable tragedy of loss of time, that the Accused can never get back.

State of AP Vs Pathakota Venkata Mohan Rao on 6 March, 2019

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

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged DP Act 3 - Not Made Out DP Act 4 - Not Made Out IPC 498a Not Made Out State of AP Vs Pathakota Venkata Mohan Rao

State of Maharashtra Vs Rajesh Laxman Kedar on 10 September, 2018

Posted on April 9, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

A judgment from a magistrate from Dhule, in Maharastra. See the bullshitting of this judge,

From Para 13,

It is the defence of accused persons that there are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Whatever these witnesses have stated is on the information gathered from the informant. It is very natural considering the nature of the charge. In the circumstances, the evidence of the informant is pivotal and the evidence of relative witnesses which has corroborative value always revolves around her evidence. Hence, evidence of such relative witnesses cannot be discarded by branding them as hearsay. Aftermath I have no hesitation to conclude that there is reliable corroboration from these so called interested witnesses.

From Para 14,

Learned advocate for accused persons urged that no independent witness is examined by prosecution and the investigation officer is also not examined. The offence of cruelty generally occurs within the four boundaries of the house. Under these circumstances, non examination of any independent witness can certainly be spared.

Para 17 will give you vomiting,

In the case in hand, informant was ousted from her matrimonial house on 11-02-2009 and she has lodged complaint on 14-02-2009. But she has mentioned in her evidence that, after accused persons had ousted her, she went to railway station and waited their for whole night, in the morning, she went at her elder son’s school to meet him but as her husband and her mother-in-law had prevented her from meeting her son she came back at her parent’s house. Her matrimonial house is at Mumbai and her maternal house is at Dhule, she has lodged report against accused persons at Dhule City Police Station. In view of all the above explanation, in my opinion delay is satisfactorily explained by informant.

Never mind the jurisdiction. Supreme Court’s Yours truly has already destroyed the jurisdiction with weird illogic here.

From Para 18, more vomiting,

With due respect to Hon’ble High Court, in the present case in hand, the alleged ill-treatment was occurred to informant till year 2009 and witnesses deposed during the trial in year 2013 to 2017, it would be too pedantic to state the exact dates. Hence, in my opinion, non disclosure of such dates would not be that material in the peculiar circumstances of the case as witnesses have correctly mentioned all the incidents of physical and mental cruelty. As well as in respect of the earlier discussion, offences under Section 498A occurs within four corners of the house, hence it is not expected from any neighbour to narrate the ill treatment suffered by informant by her husband and in laws. . And if for the sake of argument we accept that, her neighbours knew about the ill treatment to her by her husband and in laws, but a prudent man can conclude that a neighbor will not come and give evidence against his neighbors for the lady who is not living with his neighbour from years together.

Here goes 212 CrPC down the drain… Ahh this is womenland…

From Para 19,

With due respect to Hon’ble High Court, the above mentioned case laws are not applicable to the case in hand. In present case, informant and her witnesses have specifically deposed about the physical and mental torture as well as unlawful demand of money by accused persons and furthermore her torture on non fulfilling the unlawful demands by accused persons with corroboration. Not a single witness has deposed contrary to prosecution story regarding it. Hence, it constrains me to believe the version of informant and her witnesses

More diarrhea in Para 20,

It is also the defence of accused persons that, she herself has left company of accused no.1. She has filed divorce petition in the Court. The informant also accepted the contention of divorce in her cross examination. But while considering the situation in the Indian culture, when a marriage was performed with zeal and enthusiasm and a bride had left her parental house, it would be difficult to believe that she would leave company of her husband without any reason. Even in todays so called modern society, thereturn of daughter from matrimonial house is treated as a stigma. Considering these general factors, whenever the allegations of cruelty is made, the conduct of the parties, motive intention and other circumstances of the case etc. always needs to be kept in mind because, what amounts of cruelty is nowhere defined. It needs to be waited considering the facts of each and every case differently. However, once the unlawful demands are proved, it materially strengthens the prosecution story. Merely by saying that the informant left company of her husband on her own would not give probability to the defence of husband. He has to offer some plausible explanation on this point. Moreover, when it has emerged on record that even after partying ways with accused no.1, the informant from last 9 years or so is still residing at her parental house. There appears no other reason for her to leave her matrimonial life only because she doesn’t want to cohabit with accused no.1. It is pertinent to note that her elder son was with accused persons and one daughter is with her at the time she left her matrimonial house. Having regard to the Indian culture again a mother cannot leave her son without any strong reason. Only filing petition for divorce in the court will not mean that she was not ill treated by accused persons. Therefore, in my view, additional onus lies on the shoulder of the husband who is accountable to certain extent when his wife leaves his company by contending alleged ill-treatment.

From Para 25, vomiting about 406 IPC (No entrustment, No list of jewelry, To whom, When)

It is pertinent to note that there is no bar of filing criminal case for embezzlement of her jewelery. It is the admitted position of law that the jewelery and ornaments wore by bride at the time if her marriage are her Stridhana. It is nowhere come on record that accused no.1 had returned the jewelery to informant during the pendency of this case. Hence, I came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved section 406 of Indian Penal Code, which accused no.1 cannot rebute.

And some liberal diarrhea gyan delivery from Para 30,

The incidents of cruelty to wives is increasing day by day all over the country. The greed of her husband and relatives is unending and due to this many women has to suffer a lot, many times the greed of her husband and in laws is satisfied at the cost of her life. It is necessary to eradicate such tendency of unlawful demand of money and cruelty to a married woman. Hence, deterrence is must to curb such tendency of society. Therefore, I am not inclined to extend the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1884 to him.

You can read the rest of junk below.

State of Maharashtra Vs Rajesh Laxman Kedar on 10 September, 2018

 

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment Catena of Landmark Judgments CrPC 357 - Compensation Granted CrPC 357 - Order to pay compensation CrPC 357(3) Interested Witnesses Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law No Independent Witnesses Examined State of Maharashtra Vs Rajesh Laxman Kedar | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 3 Apr 2019 March 9, 2021
  • U.Surekha Vs State of AP on 04 Mar 2021 March 6, 2021
  • CrPC 406 – Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals March 5, 2021
  • CrPC 358 – Compensation to persons groundlessly arrested March 5, 2021
  • CrPC 250 – Compensation for accusation without reasonable cause March 5, 2021

Most Read Posts

  • Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (610 views)
  • Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs Rani Suneela Rani on 05 Jan 2017 (419 views)
  • Government Guesthouse at Kapuluppada, Visakhapatnam (335 views)
  • Dr Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs State of AP and Ors (308 views)
  • Kapil Gupta Vs State on 23 Sep 2020 (280 views)
  • In Re To issues certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials (265 views)
  • Prof. S. K. Bhalla Vs State of JnK and Ors on 09 Oct 2020 (262 views)
  • Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 (249 views)
  • CrPC 309 - Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings (246 views)
  • IPC 498A is a Compoundable Case in Andhra Pradesh (235 views)

Tags

Landmark Case (219)Legal Procedure Explained (218)Work-In-Progress Article (190)Reportable Judgement (171)Catena of Landmark Judgments (129)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (108)Sandeep Pamarati (81)Article 21 of The Constitution of India (62)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (47)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (46)Summary Post (46)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (44)3-Judge Bench Decision (39)1-Judge Bench Decision (37)IPC 498a Not Made Out (32)CrPC 482 - Quash (32)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (32)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (31)PIL - CrPC 125 Must Go From Statute Book (28)LLB Subjects and Previous Year Exam Papers and Answers (27)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (501)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (253)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (132)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (82)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (77)General Study Material (53)Prakasam DV Cases (46)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (45)LLB Study Material (45)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (40)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (37)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (35)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (33)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (27)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (27)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (21)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (13)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (11)Chittor DV Cases (11)

Recent Comments

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

Archives of SoK

  • March 2021 (7)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (29)
  • August 2020 (42)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (36)
  • December 2019 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (74)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Cloudflare Billing Issues March 6, 2021
    Mar 6, 17:52 UTCResolved - The Billing issue was identified and has been resolved.Mar 6, 17:16 UTCIdentified - The Billing issue has been identified and resolution is in progress.Mar 6, 16:09 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is experiencing problems in processing changes through our billing subscription service with credit-card or paypal. Purchasing might be affected with these […]
  • Wrong WAF nomenclature March 5, 2021
    Mar 5, 23:32 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Mar 5, 23:02 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Mar 5, 19:19 UTCIdentified - WAF actions will appear incorrectly as 'Unknown' for some events.No customer traffic is affected and the WAF is still functioning properly.
  • Elevated number of 403/1000 errors March 5, 2021
    Mar 5, 17:17 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Mar 5, 16:32 UTCIdentified - Cloudflare is investigating an increased level of HTTP 403 /1000 errors for customers using the Orange to Orange feature.We are working to analyse and mitigate this problem. More updates to follow shortly.

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 103.7.155.8 | SD March 7, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2,737 | First: 2021-02-14 | Last: 2021-03-07
  • 103.50.85.131 | SD March 7, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,508 | First: 2017-12-19 | Last: 2021-03-07
  • 103.7.155.6 | SD March 7, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2,785 | First: 2021-02-14 | Last: 2021-03-07
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC
pixel