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

Tag: Arnesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr

Gopika Jayan and Anr Vs Faisal on 22 Jun 2022

Posted on June 29 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Kerala High Court, issued notices to Police and Judicial officers, in a Contempt Case against them.

From Para 1,

1. The afore captioned Contempt of Court case has been instituted alleging patent and flagrant violation of the directives and guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the Celebrated case Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014(8) SCC 273)=2014 (3) KLJ 330.

From Para 6,

The case papers produced in this contempt petition do not show any application of mind. On the other hand, Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A8 FIS were registered on 21.01.2022 at 8 pm on the premise of a mere man missing report in regard to the first petitioner. No allegation of deliberate abandonment or desertion of the child has been made even in Annexure A8 email. It was later that false allegations were raised that the first petitioner had deliberately abandoned the child and the respondent Police Officer has without any application of mind and without satisfying himself on the basis of any objective enquiry has sought for the arrest and remand of the petitioners. When the petitioners were called to the Police Station,
they were on the bonafide belief that the FIR was registered only as a man missing report under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. The respondent Police Officer had never properly apprised the petitioners that the offence has been duly altered and the records do not show as to how the respondent Police Officer was satisfied that the case involves deliberate and premeditated abandoning of the child in the facts and circumstances of this case. Further, neither the mother of the first petitioner, nor the Police authorities have any case that the 1st petitioner has at any prior point of time abandoned the child on any previous occasion. From the abovesaid aspects apprised to us by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, we see that a 22 year old young working lady and her colleague have been arrested and remanded at the instance of the respondent Officer. Prima facie, we would also observe in the same breadth that though, the first petitioner had given a statement before the learned Magistrate in terms of Annexure A6, the learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration those aspects regarding the harassment said to have been meted out to her by her so called step father and has not cared to make any proper satisfaction as to whether the case of deliberate and premeditated abandonment of the child is made out. This we say so in view of the first proviso to Section 75 of the JJ Act. Direction no.8 in Paragraph 14 of Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra) would also concede that authorizing detention without recording proper reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall also be liable for Departmental action by the appropriate High Court etc. It is by now, well established as an elementary proposition of criminal jurisprudence as can be seen from a reading of Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra), D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, [AIR 1997 SC 610], as well as Jogindar Kumar V. State of UP & Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 260], that no arrest can be made merely because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so and the existence of the power to arrest is one thing and justification of the exercise of it is quite another and no arrest shall be made without reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation about the genuineness and bonafides of a complaint and a reasonable belief that both as per the person’s complicity and even as to the necessity to arrest that person and denial of liberty is a serious matter, etc. These aspects of the matter have also been referred to in the celebrated decisions of the Apex Court in D.K. Basu’s case [AIR 1997 SC 610] and Joginder Kumar Vs. State of UP [AIR 1994 SC 1349].

From Para 8, Conclusion.

8. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Contempt of Court case will stand admitted. Issue notice to the respondent Officer, which shall be served on him through the Commissioner of Police, KochiCity. In case the respondent Officer is not available in the abovesaid address, then notice process shall be duly completed by affixture, in the presence of witnesses and report in that regard shall be duly given to this Court within three days.

From Para 9,

9. The Registrar General will forthwith call for a report from the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, who has rendered Annexure A7 remand order dated 03.02.2022 on Crime No.44/2022 of Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam, as to how he could reach reasonable satisfaction, based on the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions and the applicable legal principles and as to why the arrest and remand of both these accused persons was highly imperative. So also, it shall be explained as to how he has ordered that A1 (1st petitioner) is remanded to the District Jail, Kakkanad and A2 (2nd petitioner) is remanded to the Judicial custody to Borstal School, Kakkanad.
10. The Registrar General will forward a copy of the memorandum of this Contempt Petition with all the Annexures thereto as well as the additional documents to the learned Magistrate, who shall submit his explanation within two weeks from the date of receipt of a communication in that regard by the Registrar General.

Gopika Jayan and Anr Vs Faisal on 22 Jun 2022
Posted in High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Arnesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr Catena of Landmark Judgments D.K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal Gopika Jayan and Anr Vs Faisal Judiciary Antics Juvenile Justice Act Section 75 - Punishment for Cruelty to Child Juvenile Justice Act Section 87 - Abetment Landmark Case Police Antics | Leave a comment

Jagdish Shrivastava Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Mar 2022

Posted on March 21 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court deprecated such practice of the Police Officer in taking the petitioners into custody without compliance of Section 41(A) Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that no notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C was ever served and after this fact came to the notice of the Investigating officer that SLPs have been preferred by the petitioners for seeking pre-arrest bail, he approached them and took the petitioners into custody on 8th March, 2022.
Since the petitioners have now been in custody, it may not be appropriate for this Court to pass further orders but at the same time, we grant them liberty to file regular bail application.

If such an application is filed, it is expected from the Trial Court to take note of non-compliance of Section 41(A) Cr.P.C and dispose of the application for post-arrest bail, if any, filed by the petitioners within a reasonable time as expeditiously as possible.
We deprecate such practice of the Police Officer in overstepping after the matter being instituted in this Court and taking the petitioners into custody without compliance of Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273.

Jagdish Shrivastava Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Mar 2022
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Arnesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr CrPC 41A - Notice of appearance before police officer Jagdish Shrivastava Vs State of Maharashtra Misuse or Violation of CrPC 41A | Leave a comment

M.A Khaliq and Ors Vs Ashok Kumar and Anr on 15 Sep 2021

Posted on March 5 by ShadesOfKnife

A three-judge full bench of Apex Court held as follows.

The report of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, after due inquiry into the matter sets out the factual details of the matter. The report indicates that the contempt petitioner was not only summoned to Akividu Police Station in the name of counseling but was also detained.
In the circumstances, there was clear violation of the directions issued by this Court not only in Arnesh Kumar but also in the case in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.
The mere fact that no crime was registered, could not be a defence, nor would it be an escape from the rigour of the decisions rendered by this Court.
As a matter of fact, summoning the person without there being any crime registered against him and detaining him would itself be violative of basic principles.
In the circumstances, the Division Bench was not right and justified in setting aside the view taken by the Single Judge of the High Court. We, therefore, allow this appeal. While setting aside the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, we restore the decision of the Single Judge.
However, considering the facts and circumstances on record, the substantive sentence of three months as recorded in paragraph 32 of the decision of the Single Judge is modified to 15 days leaving rest of the incidents of sentence completely intact.
The contemnor shall surrender himself before the Registrar of the High Court within two weeks from today.

M.A Khaliq and Ors Vs Ashok Kumar and Anr on 15 Sep 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/136109957/

https://www.legitquest.com/case/ma-khaliq-ors-v-ashok-kumar-anr/1FCF45

https://legiteye.com/detaining-any-person-without-there-being-any-crime-registered-against-him-is-violation-of-basic-principles-supreme-court/


Division Bench decision is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Arnesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr CrPC 41A - Notice of appearance before police officer Landmark Case M.A Khaliq and Ors Vs Ashok Kumar and Anr Misuse or Violation of CrPC 41A | Leave a comment

V.Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Posted on March 5 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench decision from Telangana High Court passed these guidelines.

Hence, this Court feels that an alternative mechanism shall be evolved to address the plight of these under-trial prisoners / accused:

  1. Parties Advocates shall download the order copy from the High Court’s Website along with case details which are available in the case status information
  2. While filing the memo on behalf of accused for furnishing sureties, the Advocate shall state in the Memo that he / she has downloaded the order copy from the High Court’s Website. The Administrative Officer Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court concerned shall verify the order from the High Court’s Website and make an endorsement to that effect and then shall place the same before the Court.
  3. The Public Prosecutor shall also obtain necessary instructions in this regard and assist the Court.
  4. The Presiding Officer, on the same day, shall dispose of the same and dispatch the release order to the jail authorities concerned forthwith through e-mail or any other electronic mode.
  5. In cases of anticipatory bail, the burden to verify the authenticity of the copy is on the Station House Officer concerned and if necessary, he should obtain necessary instructions from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and complete the process on the same day expeditiously as per law.
  6. The jail authorities on receipt of the release order shall release the accused forthwith.
  7. Registrar (Judicial) shall communicate copy of this order to:
    1. The Principal Secretary for Home Affairs, State of Telangana,
    2. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana,
    3. The Director of Prosecution, who, in turn, shall sensitize the police officers Station House Officers / Public Prosecutors and ensure implementation of this order
  8.  Registrar (Judicial) shall communicate copy of this order to all the Principal District Judges in the State, who, in turn, shall sensitize all the Presiding Officers and ensure implementation of this order.
  9. Registrar (Judicial) is further directed to circulate the copy of this order to all the Bar Associations in the State through the Principal District Judges, so that they can effectively address their client’s cause.
  10. Registrar (Judicial) shall also issue a separate notification in this regard and the same shall be displayed in the High Court’s Website.
  11. These directions will apply to all bail application including bails in Criminal Revision as well as Criminal Appeals.

This order shall come into force from 22.11.2021.

V.Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana
Posted in High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Arnesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions Landmark Case Misuse or Violation of CrPC 41A V.Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana | Leave a comment

Vimal Kumar Vs State of U.P. on 28 Jan 2021

Posted on February 2, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on Arnesh Kumar and Manav Adhikar, Allahabad High Court discussed the meaning and import of Sec 41A of CrPC and passed directions not to arrest accused automatically in 498A IPC cases.

Vimal Kumar Vs State of U.P. on 21 Jan 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/pained-unnecessary-arrest-allahabad-high-court-comply-with-section-41-crpc

https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/OTYwNQ==/Guidelines-directing-strict-compliance-with-Section-41-CrPC-issued-by-Allahabad-High-Court

https://www.latestlaws.com/latest-news/while-explaining-amended-meaning-of-section-41-cr-p-c-high-court-passes-several-direction-to-stop-the-routinely-and-arbitrary-arrests-read-order/

 

Posted in High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Arnesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr CrPC 41A - Notice of appearance before police officer Misuse or Violation of CrPC 41A No Automatic Arrest Reportable Judgement or Order Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another Vs Union of India Vimal Kumar Vs State of U.P. | Leave a comment

Ramadugu Omkar Varma Vs Ashok Naik on 24 Jan 2020

Posted on December 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A Police officer who made an illegal arrest was handed with a sentence of imprisonment for a period of four (04) weeks, and shall also pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in four (04) weeks. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the respondent is suspended for a period of six (06) weeks.

But then, Court also said the following:

Subsistence allowance at the rate of Rs.200/- per day shall be deposited by petitioner within four (04) weeks.

Ramadugu Omkar Varma Vs Ashok Naik on 24 Jan 2020
Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Arnesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr Misuse or Violation of CrPC 41A Police Antics Ramadugu Omkar Varma Vs Ashok Naik | Leave a comment

Jangala Sambasiva Rao Vs State of AP and Anr on 28 Oct 2020

Posted on November 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justise Lalitha Kanneganti held that there is violation of Guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar in effecting an arrest without complying with 41A CrPC procedure and held demanded reports from both Police belonging to concerned PS and also the Magistrate who mechanically issue Judicial custody.

Jangala Sambasiva Rao Vs State of AP and Anr on 28 Oct 2020

A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Arnesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr CrPC 41A - Notice of appearance before police officer Jangala Sambasiva Rao Vs State of AP and Anr | Leave a comment

Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014

Posted on July 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Awesome judgment from Justice J.B.PARDIWALA, at Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. Excellent analysis and dissection of cunning knife’s mind.

Funny Anecdote #1:

Establishing Jurisdiction:

The sum and substance of the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 appears to be a matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife, but as usual, all other family members have been roped in as accused persons. The applicant No.2, Dipikaben, is the wife of the applicant No.1’s brother. I am told that Dipikaben is a widow and she is residing independently at Padra of District Baroda. Dipikaben has a daughter aged about 20 years. The applicant No.3 Hetalben is the niece of the applicant No.1, and is residing at her matrimonial home at Gotri. The applicant No.3 got married in the year 2006, and before her marriage, was residing at Delhi. The applicants Nos. 4 and 5 are the husband and wife, and both are residing at Delhi. The applicant No.4 is one of the brothers of the applicant No.1. The applicant No.6, who is the sister of the applicant No.1, is residing at her matrimonial home at Baroda.

Funny Anecdote #2:

Delay in filing Complaint/FIR:

It appears on a plain reading of the FIR that on her own admission, she had stayed at her matrimonial home upto the year 2004, and thereafter, she left the matrimonial home and started residing at her parental home. The respondent No.2 lodged the F.I.R after a period of four years thereafter i.e. in 2009.

Legal Point #1:

When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

One more:

Although the respondent No.2 is much more annoyed with her husband, with an obvious motive, has arrayed all the close relatives of her husband in the FIR. The Police also seems to have recorded stereo-type statements of the witnesses who are none other than the parents and other relatives of the respondent No.2 and has filed a charge-sheet.

Legal Point #3

Thus, it could be seen from the above that the apex Court has noticed the tendency of the married women roping in all the relatives of her husband in such complaints only with a view to harass all of them, though they may not be even remotely involved in the offence alleged.

One more here

In all cases where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498-A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No F.I.R is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC.

Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014
Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Arnesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr CrPC 482 – Charge Sheet Quashed CrPC 482 – FIR Quashed CrPC 482 – IPC 498A Quashed Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat IPC 498a - Not Made Out Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes | Leave a comment

Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 2 July 2014

Posted on May 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark judgment from Supreme Court asserting that ‘No automatic arrest’ in matrimonial cases.

“Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

(1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;
(2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
(3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
(4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;
(5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
(6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
(7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction;
(8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

 

Most important.

We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may
extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014

Citations: [2014 DLT 210 599], [2014 GLR 2 1848], [2014 CRIMES SC 3 40], [2014 OLR SC 2 562], [2014 KARLJ SC 4 177], [2014 AD SC 7 697], [2014 KCCR 3 1977], [2014 JT 7 527], [2014 AIOL 411], [2014 MPHT SC 4 81], [2014 RLW SC 3 2171], [2014 CCR SC 3 144], [2014 WLN SC 3 28], [2014 AIC 140 118], [2014 MPJR SC 4 55], [2014 JLJR SC 3 313], [2015 LW CRL 1 318], [2014 ALT CRI 2 457], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 3 527], [2014 KHC 3 69], [2014 CRIMES SC 3 206], [2014 GLT SC 3 102], [2014 SLT 5 582], [2014 SCC 8 273], [2014 MLJ CRL SC 3 353], [2014 CRLJ SC 3707], [2014 AIR SCW 3930], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 532], [2014 ACR SC 3 2670], [2014 SCJ 6 219], [2014 CRILJ 3707], [2014 GUJLR 2 1848], [2014 JT 9 55], [2014 SUPREME 5 324], [2014 DMC SC 2 546], [2014 GUJ LH 2 547], [2014 KERLT 3 143], [2014 ILR 5507], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 3 362], [2014 SCALE 8 250], [2014 PLJR 3 314], [2014 AIR SC 2756], [2014 JCC SC 3 1529], [2014 KLJ 3 330], [2014 SCC CRI 3 449], [2014 SCSUPPL CHN 4 73], [2014 GLH 2 547], [2014 ALLCC 86 568], [2014 ILR KER 3 165]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2982624/

https://www.legitquest.com/case/arnesh-kumar-v-state-of-bihar/883C7

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af58e4b01497114161f7

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Arnesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr CrPC 41 - When police may arrest without warrant CrPC 41A - Notice of appearance before police officer CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail Granted Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions Landmark Case No Automatic Arrest | Leave a comment

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Gopika Jayan and Anr Vs Faisal on 22 Jun 2022 June 29, 2022
  • Shivanand Gurannavar Vs Basavva on 17 Feb 2022 June 28, 2022
  • Gayatri alias Gadigevva Vs Vijay Hadimani on 03 Dec 2021 June 28, 2022
  • Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 09 Jul 2019 June 27, 2022
  • Ms New Era Fabrics Ltd Vs Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri and Ors on 03 Mar 2020 June 26, 2022

Most Read Posts

  • Jagdish Shrivastava Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Mar 2022 (1,476 views)
  • Bhagyashri Jagdish Jaiswal Vs Jagdish Sajjanlala Jaiswal and Anr on 26 Feb 2022 (1,438 views)
  • Deepak Sharma Vs State of Haryana on 12 Jan 2022 (824 views)
  • Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (795 views)
  • Luckose Zachariah Vs Joseph Joseph on 18 Feb 2022 (738 views)
  • Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (662 views)
  • Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022 (660 views)
  • Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (496 views)
  • MS Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra on 26 Jul 2021 (439 views)
  • Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022 (414 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (310)Reportable Judgement or Order (296)Landmark Case (293)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (221)Work-In-Progress Article (212)Catena of Landmark Judgments (192)1-Judge Bench Decision (109)Sandeep Pamarati (85)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (75)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (72)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (51)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (51)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (37)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions (36)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)Advocate Antics (33)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (32)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (603)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (295)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (152)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (104)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (88)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (60)General Study Material (55)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (49)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (48)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (39)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (38)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (35)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (32)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (15)

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

  • June 2022 (26)
  • 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 (29)
  • 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 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

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

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Issue creating new R2 authentication tokens June 29, 2022
    Jun 29, 01:37 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jun 29, 00:08 UTCMonitoring - R2 customers that created new authentication tokens between 2022-06-28 15:00 UTC and 2022-06-29 00:00 may have experienced issues where they are unable to use the authentication tokens to authenticate with R2. Customers attempting to use these tokens may experience a 500 […]
  • Network Analytics v2 beta dashboard displaying incorrect data June 28, 2022
    Jun 28, 21:42 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jun 28, 21:41 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Jun 28, 19:06 UTCIdentified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented.Jun 28, 18:31 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is currently investigating an issue where in some cases Magic […]
  • Increased HTTP 5xx Errors in Moscow, Russia (DME) June 28, 2022
    Jun 28, 21:08 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jun 28, 20:46 UTCIdentified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented.Jun 28, 19:24 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is investigating an increased level of HTTP 5xx errors in our Moscow, Russia (DME) data center. We are working to analyze and mitigate this problem. […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 146.185.239.122 | SD June 28, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 462 | First: 2022-01-27 | Last: 2022-06-28
  • 109.239.60.218 | SD June 28, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 34 | First: 2022-06-28 | Last: 2022-06-28
  • 43.248.41.76 | SD June 28, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,643 | First: 2017-01-05 | Last: 2022-06-28
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 387 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel