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: Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty

Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul Vs State of Odisha on 23 Nov 2020

Posted on November 25, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single judge bench of Orissa High Court, in this bail matter, held that right to be forgotten (or left alone) is part of bouquet of rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

From Para 5,

5. While examining the pages of the case records, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has uploaded the said photos/videos on a social media platform i.e. Facebook and with the intervention of the police, after some days, he deleted the said objectionable contents from the Facebook. In fact, the information in the public domain is like toothpaste, once it is out of the tube one can’t get it back in and once the information is in the public domain it will never go away. Under the Indian Criminal Justice system a strong penal action is prescribed against the accused for such heinous crime but there is no mechanism available with respect to the right of the victim to get the objectionable photographs deleted from the server of the Facebook. The different types of harassment, threats and assaults that frighten citizens in regard to their online presence pose serious concerns for
citizens. There is an unprecedented escalation of such insensitive behavior on the social media platforms and the victim like the present one could not get those photos deleted permanently from server of such social media platforms like facebook. Though the statute prescribes penal action for the
accused for such crimes, the rights of the victim, especially, her right to privacy which is intricately linked to her right to get deleted in so far as those objectionable photos have been left unresolved. There is a widespread and seemingly consensual convergence towards an adoption and enshrinement of the right to get deleted or forgotten but hardly any effort has been undertaken in India till recently, towards adoption of such a right, despite such an issue has inexorably posed in the technology dominated world. Presently, there is no statute in India which provides for the right to be forgotten/getting the photos erased from the server of the social media platforms permanently. The legal possibilities of being forgotten on line or off line cries for a widespread debate. It is also an undeniable fact that the implementation of right to be forgotten is a thorny issue in terms of practicality and technological nuances. In fact, it cries for a clear cut demarcation of institutional boundaries and redressal of many delicate issues which hitherto remain unaddressed in Indian jurisdiction. The dynamics of hyper connectivity- the abundance, pervasiveness and accessibility of communication network have redefined the memory and the prescriptive mandate to include in the technological contours is of pressing importance.

From Para 14,

14. Section 27 of the draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 contains the right to be forgotten. Under Section 27, a data principal (an individual) has the right to prevent continuing disclosure of personal data by a data fiduciary. The aforesaid provision which falls under Chapter VI (Data Principal Rights) of the Bill, distinctly carves out the “right to be forgotten” in no uncertain terms. In terms of this provision, every data principal shall have the right to restrict or prevent continuing disclosure of personal data (relating to such data principal) by any data fiduciary if such disclosure meets any one of the following three conditions, namely if the disclosure of personal data:
(i) has served the purpose for which it was made or is no longer necessary; or
(ii) was made on the basis of the data  principal’s consent and such consent has since been withdrawn; or
(iii) was made contrary to the provisions of the bill or any other law in force.
In addition to this, Section 10 of the Bill provides that a data fiduciary shall retain personal data only as long as may be reasonably necessary to satisfy the purpose for which it is  processed. Further, it imposes an obligation on every data fiduciary to undertake periodic reviews in order to  determine whether it is necessary to retain the personal data in its possession. If it is not necessary for personal data to be retained by a data fiduciary, then such personal data must be deleted in a manner as may be specified.

 

Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul Vs State of Odisha on 23 Nov 2020

Index of Article 21 case laws is here.

Posted in High Court of Orissa Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty CrPC 439 - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail Right to be Forgotten Right to be left alone Right to Personal Liberty Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul Vs State of Odisha | Leave a comment

Subhash Bahadur @Upender Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 6 Nov 2020

Posted on November 10, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Delhi High Court held that there is no need for filing an formal application seeking default bail, once the conditions set out in section 167(2)(a) are made out, as continued confinement violates fundamental right under Article 21.

From Paras 32, 33 and 34,

32. A plain reading of the Proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC indicates that an accused would necessarily have to be released on bail “if he is prepared to and does furnish bail”. Thus, in cases where the statutory period of sixty days or ninety days has expired, the accused would be entitled to be released on bail provided he meets the condition as set out therein – that is, he is prepared to furnish and does furnish bail. It is important to note that there is no provision requiring him to make any formal application.

33. It is also trite law that there is no inherent power in a court to remand an accused to custody. Such power must be traced to an express provision of law [See: Natbar Parida Bisnu Charan vs State of Orissa: (1975) Supp SCR 137 and Union of India vs Thamsharasi: (1995) 4 SCC 190]. As is apparent from the language of Proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC, the power of a Court to remand an accused to custody pending investigation is circumscribed and stands denuded if the period of sixty days or ninety days, as the case may be, has expired and the accused is ready and willing to furnish bail.

34. It is also necessary to bear in mind that courts have consistently leaned to resolve the tension between form and substance, in favour of substance and have used the interpretative tools to address the substance of the matter. In Ajay Hasia Etc v Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors:1981SCR(2) 79 had, in an altogether different context, observed that “where the constitution fundamentals vital to maintenance of human rights are at stake, functional realism and not facial cosmetics must be the diagnostic tool, for constitutional law must seek the substance and not the form”. Thus, if in substance the essential conditions as set out under the Proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC are met and complied with – that is (i) if the investigation has not been completed within the period of sixty or ninety days, as the case may be, from the date of arrest of the accused; and (ii) if the accused is prepared to offer bail – then there would be no justifiable reason to detain the accused.

Subhash Bahadur @Upender Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 6 Nov 2020

More Gyan here.

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty CrPC 167 - Default Bail CrPC 167 - Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours Subhash Bahadur @Upender Vs State (NCT of Delhi) | Leave a comment

Balaji Baliram Mupade Vs State of Maharashtra on 29 Oct 2020

Posted on November 8, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court, again, highlighted the need of delivering judgments at the earliest, as the “problem is compounded where the result is known but not the reasons.”

From Para 3,

3. Further, much later but still almost two decades ago, this Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar – 2001 (7) SCC 318 deemed it appropriate to provide some guidelines regarding the pronouncement of judgments, expecting them to be followed by all concerned under the mandate of this Court. It is not necessary to reproduce the directions except to state that normally the judgment is expected within two months of the conclusion of the arguments, and on expiry of three months any of the parties can file an application in the High Court with prayer for early judgment. If, for any reason, no judgment is pronounced for six months, any of the parties is entitled to move an application before the then Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to re-assign the case before another Bench for fresh arguments.

From Para 10,

10. We must note with regret that the counsel extended through various judicial pronouncements including the one referred to aforesaid appear to have been ignored, more importantly where oral orders are pronounced. In case of such orders, it is expected that they are either dictated in the Court or at least must follow immediately thereafter, to facilitate any aggrieved party to seek redressal from the higher Court. The delay in delivery of judgments has been observed to be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in Anil Rai’s case (supra) and as stated aforesaid, the problem gets aggravated when the operative portion is made available early and the reasons follow much later.

Balaji Baliram Mupade Vs State of Maharashtra on 29 Oct 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Anil Rai Vs State of Bihar Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Balaji Baliram Mupade Vs State of Maharashtra Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Delay in Passing Orders or Judgments After Reserving the Same Landmark Case Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Swaran Singh and Ors Vs State NCT Delhi and Anr on 18 Aug 2008

Posted on November 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Katju held that offending words to a member of SC/ST, are liable under the Act, only if made in any place in public view, but not otherwise. A big relief for those facing false cases.

From Paras 27 and 28,

27. Learned counsel then contended that the alleged act was not committed in a public place and hence does not come within the purview of section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In this connection it may be noted that the aforesaid provision does not use the expression ‘public place’, but instead the expression used is ‘in any place within public view’. In our opinion there is a clear distinction between the two expressions.

28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a ‘Chamar’) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression ‘place within public view’ with the expression ‘public place’. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.

And relating to American cuss word Nigger,

30. In this connection it may be mentioned that in America to use the word ‘Nigger’ today for an African-American is regarded as highly offensive and is totally unacceptable, even if it was acceptable 50 years ago. In our opinion, even if the word ‘Chamar’ was not regarded offensive at one time in our country, today it is certainly a highly offensive word when used in a derogatory sense to insult and humiliate a person. Hence, it should never be used with that intent. The use of the word ‘Chamar’ will certainly attract section 3(1)(x) of the Act, if from the context it appears that it was used in a derogatory sense to insult or humiliate a member of the SC/ST.

And then Husband was held to have NOT insulted the respondent in public view,

34. However, a perusal of the F.I.R. shows that Swaran Singh did not use these offensive words in the public view. There is nothing in the F.I.R. to show that any member of the public was present when Swaran Singh uttered these words, or that the place where he uttered them was a place which ordinarily could be seen by the public. Hence in our opinion no prima facie offence is made out against appellant no.1.

Swaran Singh and Ors Vs State NCT Delhi and Anr on 18 Aug 2008

Citations : [2008 SCC 8 435], [2008 SCC CRI 3 527], [2008 AIC SC 69 25], [2008 AIOL 938], [2008 AIR SC SUPP 441], [2009 BOMCR CRI SC 2 431], [2008 CRLJ SC 4369], [2008 JT 9 60], [2009 MPLJ SC 1 503], [2008 SCALE 11 346], [2008 SCR 12 132]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/531612/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd270607dba63d7e69106

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Misuse of SC-ST Act Reportable Judgement or Order Swaran Singh and Ors Vs State NCT Delhi and Anr | Leave a comment

Arun Sharma Vs State of M.P. on 02 Dec 2020

Posted on November 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this wonderful Order from 1-judge Gwalior bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was held that parading suspects in the media/public is violative of Article 21 and the concerned officers are liable for the violation of fundamental rights including compensation.

Arun Sharma Vs State of M.P. on 02 Nov 2020

Here is the Final Judgment… Some snippets follow…

From Paras 21, 22 and 23,

21. The Counsel for the State also could not point out as to how, the respondent no. 3 could have taken cognizance of the complaint made by the landlady. From the plain reading of the application, it is clear that She had prayed for recovery of arrears of rent as well as for eviction of the petitioner. By no stretch of imagination, the complaint filed made by the landlady can be said to have disclosed cognizable offence. Even a non-cognizable offence was not disclosed in the complaint. The entire complaint was beyond the jurisdiction of the police authorities but still cognizance of the same was taken.

22. When a specific question was put to Shri Amit Sanghi, Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, that whether it is the official duty of the police to get the shops vacated without there being any orders of the Court, then it was rightly admitted by Shri Amit Sanghi, Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, that the police has no authority whatsoever under any law, to evict the tenants from the tenanted premises and the eviction can take place only under the decree of eviction issued by the Court of competent jurisdiction. However, it is submitted by Shri Sanghi, that the incident of 25-7-2020 took place
prior to his posting in Gwalior. Even the respondent no.3, in his return has categorically stated that the matter of eviction is a civil matter and police has no jurisdiction.

23. Although the Counsel for the respondent no. 4 relied upon Section 23 of Police Act, but as a departmental enquiry is pending against the respondents no. 3 to 5, therefore, only undisputed facts and the stand taken by the respondents as well as the preliminary enquiry reports are being considered for deciding this petition. However, it is not out of place to mention here, that now the respondents no. 3 to 5 are involved in mud-sledging on each other, thereby placing certain documents on record, which were suppressed by the respondents no. 1 and 2.

From Para 24,

24. It is the case of the respondent no. 4 that it was the respondent no. 3, who had directed her to enquire the complaint made by the landlady, whereas it is the case of the respondent no. 3, that the copy of the complaint was given to him by respondent no. 4, only when he returned back to the police station at 16:00 and the endorsement made on the application thereby, directing the respondent no. 4 to enquire, does not bear his signatures. However, the return of the respondent no. 3 is beautifully silent as to whether such endorsement is in his handwriting or not? In para 8 of the return, the respondent no. 3 has pleaded that as per routine procedure when any complaint is submitted in Police Station, it is registered in Complaint register and is placed by the Police Station Munshi before the respondent no.3. Although it is the contention of the respondent no. 3 that he was
given the said application by the respondent no.4, only after he came back to the police station at 16:00, but his return is completely silent as to why he did not ask the respondent no. 4, that under whose authority, the endorsement of entrusting enquiry to the respondent no. 4 was written. In absence of such pleadings, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent no.3, and it is held that endorsement made on the application dated 25-7-2020 made by the landlady is in the handwriting of the respondent no.3 and it was the respondent no.3 who had entrusted the enquiry to the respondent no.

 

Arun Sharma Vs State of M.P. on 02 Dec 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19697017/

Posted in High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Arun Sharma Vs State of M.P. Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Landmark Case Reportable Judgement or Order Right against Parading accused in General Public | Leave a comment

Reena Hazarika Vs State of Assam on 31 Oct 2018

Posted on October 29, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Navin Sinha held that procedure u/s 313 CrPC may very well be considered as a fundamental right as part of Rights available under Article 21 of the Constitution.

From Para 16,

16. Section 313, Cr.P.C. cannot be seen simply as a part of audi alteram partem. It confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond a statutory right as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, even if it is not to be considered as a piece of substantive evidence, not being on oath under Section 313(2), Cr.P.C. The importance of this right has been considered time and again by this court, but it yet remains to be applied in practice as we shall see presently in the discussion to follow. If the accused takes a defence after the prosecution evidence is closed, under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. the Court is duty bound under Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. to consider the same. The mere use of the word ‘may’ cannot be held to confer a discretionary power on the court to consider or not to consider such defence, since it constitutes a valuable right of an accused for access to justice, and the likelihood of the prejudice that may be caused thereby. Whether the defence is acceptable or not and whether it is compatible or incompatible with the evidence available is an entirely different matter. If there has been no consideration at all of the defence taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in the given facts of a case, the conviction may well stand vitiated. To our mind, a solemn duty is cast on the court in dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.


Citations : 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 2281, 2019 (1) AICLR 192 (SC), 2018 (3) JIC 75 (SC), AIR 2018 SC 5361

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/152892250/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5bd9d9c99eff430a1b47fd8c

Section 313 CrPC can well be considered as a constitutional right under Article 21; invocation of last seen theory sans facts and evidence does not shift onus on accused: SC

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty CrPC 313 - Power to examine the accused Reena Hazarika Vs State of Assam Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India and Ors on 16 Dec 1983

Posted on October 13, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice P.N. Bhagawati held as follows…

It is the fundamental right of every one in this Country, assured under the interpretation given to Article 21 by this Court in Francis Mullen’s case, to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity, enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Article 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of workers men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State neither the Central Government nor any State Government-has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials. Since the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39, Article 41 and 42 are not enforceable in a court of law, it may not be possible to compel the State through the judicial process to make provision by statutory enactment or executive fiat for ensuring these basic essentials which go to make up a life of human dignity but where legislation is already enacted by the State providing these basic requirements to the workmen and thus investing their right to live with basic human dignity, with concrete reality and content, the State can certainly be obligated to ensure observance of such legislation for inaction on the part of the State in securing implementation of such legislation would amount to denial of the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21, more so in the context of Article 256 which provides that, the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India and Ors on 16 Dec 1983

Citations : [1984 AIR SC 802], [1984 SCC 3 161], [1984 SCR 2 67], [1983 SCALE 2 1151], [1984 SCC L&S 389], [1984 LABIC 560], [1984 LLN 2 60], [1984 UJ 16 29], [1984 AIR 802], [1984 LAB IC 560]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/595099/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac0fe4b014971140dea7


List of other case laws around Article 21 are here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India and Ors Right to Live with Human Dignity | Leave a comment

Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty

Posted on October 4, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty | Leave a comment

Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 13 Feb 2001

Posted on October 4, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Another landmark judgment which emphasizes that Right to Speedy Trial is integral to Article 21 of Constitution.

Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 13 Feb 2001

Citations: [2001 ACR SC 1 719], [2001 AIR SC 1246], [2001 ALD CRI 1 559], [2001 ALLMR CRI SC 582], [2001 JT SC 2 558], [2001 RCR CRIMINAL 1 838], [2001 RLW SC 2 297], [2001 SCALE 2 8], [2001 SCC 4 525], [2001 SCR 1 990], [2001 UC 1 652], [2001 AIR SC 0 795], [2001 BCR 5 323], [2001 AIR SC 1248], [2001 BOMCR CRI SC 323], [2001 CRIMES SC 1 248], [2001 CRLJ SC 1242], [2001 SUPREME 1 661], [2001 SLT 2 68], [2001 SRJ 3 341], [2001 CCR 1 197], [2001 JCC 1 185], [2001 AD SC 2 202], [2001 BLR 2 978], [2001 SCC CR 787], [2001 UJ SC 1 593], [2001 RECENTCR 1 838], [2001 AIR SCW 0 795], [2001 MLJ CRL 1 476]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/220491/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad90e4b0149711411b60

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Landmark Case Reportable Judgement or Order Right to Speedy Trial Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors | Leave a comment

All Reliefs from Judiciary

Posted on August 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Awareness of law involved in the case laid against you is crucial to handle and take charge of your case yourself. The following are some of the general reliefs one can invoke in Andhra Pradesh for sure. They may apply to other states also. List of High Courts is here.


BNSS is available here.


Note: If you need some reliefs from Police High-handedness, go here.


Always remember Article 21 of Constitution of India

Article 21 is what powers Fair treatment of accused during criminal trials. It provides for fair investigation, Fair trial and Fair Judgment. Any violation of Article 21 gives you liberty to invoke Article 226 at High Court and Article 32 at Supreme Court to seek Writ Reliefs. Case laws are available in chronological order here.

It reads as follows:

21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.


Engagement of Advocates

As per Section 32 of Advocates Act 1961, you can appear in your own case.

If a victim wants to engage a private advocate to prosecute their case, yes you can, but only to assist the PP. The sections to back this aspect are to read

  1. Sec 225 CrPC
  2. Proviso to Sec 24(8) CrPC
  3. Sec 301 CrPC
  4. and finally Sec 302 CrPC. In that Order.

Hope this helps clarify the legal position to those of us who filed/intend to file Criminal cases against OP. This is explained in this case law here. The case law is available on my site here.


Engagement of a third-party other than Advocates

As per again Section 32 of Advocates Act 1961, you can appear in some one else’s case, subject to certain conditions.

  1. You must be a non-advocate
  2. You must have some relationship due to which the accused/defendant trusts you
  3. You may be permitted by a Court, an authority or any person
  4. You may be permitted to appear in any particular case; as a corollary, may not be permitted in all cases or for all clients
  5. Prior Court permission is necessary (via a Petition; sample here)

This is laid out by the Legendary Jurist Sri V.R. Krishna Iyer in this celebrated case law here.


Terminating the services of Advocates (through issuing a termination letter discharging existing Advocate from case who earlier filed vakalatnama and communicating the same to advocate)

You have complete freedom to terminate the services of your Advocate and engage another one. Just be cautiously about the local procedures which can differ from High Court to High Court. It means, in some High Courts, there is no need of any No-Objection-Certification (NOC) from your current Advocate before you engage another. Like in Karnataka. But not so in Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is unwritten rule to obtain NOC so as to avoid unpleasant situations/conversations/interactions between you and your advocates (or between the earlier and current Advocates). Nevertheless Supreme Court has laid down a landmark case law here. Use it judiciously. Also take a look at other similar case laws here.


First Appearance in Court

Once the case documents are sent to Court via a Charge sheet or Closure report as mandated u/s 173 CrPC, Court Filing Section staff gives is a case number and list it in the causelist (daily timetable of work) before a competent Magistrate/ Judge.

On your first appearance day in the Court, Court staff will ask questions to identify you and your purpose of attending the Court. Next question is if you have engaged an advocate or need time for this purpose. Finally, case will be adjourned to a future date and each accused person will be given a set of copy of the above case documents which were submitted into Court by Police as mandated u/s 207 CrPC.

And once an Anticipatory Bail is granted, it protected the grantee/accused until the end of trial and there is no need to obtain Regular Bail, after Charge sheet is filed by Police into the Court. Case law here.


Exemption from Personal Appearance in Court

If you do not want to appear even on first appearance for certain obvious and unavoidable reasons, take help from this case law here and here and You can seek exemption for self or other accused from appearing in the Court in a case u/s 205 CrPC of CrPC 205. Vital Case laws are available here. For single-day relief, see Absent Petition below.


Provision u/s 173 CrPC to demand documents from IO to be submitted to Court and to obtain a copy of prosecution documents

Section 173(7) reads as follows:

(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5).

How to use it:

If you are good terms with IO, then he/she may find it convenient to furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents. Be courteous to IO to make use of this.

Note: Otherwise, as mentioned above, Court will anyways, provide a copy of the entire bunch of prosecution documents to each accused on first appearance.

Section 173(6) reads as follows:

(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.

How to use it:

If you have submitted any documents/made a statement that IO records during inquiry (supposedly u/s 41A CrPC), and such documents are missing in the bunch of documents procured via above section or u/s 207 CrPC, then submit to the Court that such left-out/excluded documents be brought on record of Court. The case law is here.

Even if such seeking of documents is objected to for any legal reason, one can seek for inspection of such documents as held in here.


Protest Petition

After Police file a final report ( be it a Charge sheet or a Closure report), Court notifies the informant/complainant about the same and invites any objections to the same. The informant/complainant can file a protest petition into the Court and object to section/accused removal from Charge sheet or Closure report itself can be objected to. Couple of Landmark judgments are here.


Limited Authority of Registry or Filing Section/Office attached to a Court

A Registry attached to a High Court or a Filing Section attached to a District/Magistrate Court has a limited set of functions on the administration of Justice and authority and they certainly can not exercise judicial function as held by Supreme Court here. Use this judgment, as appropriate, to ensure Court staff perform only their duties and nothing beyond that.


Time-bound disposal provisions in Various Enactments

Check this page here for various provision available in the gender-biased laws which specify time limits for disposal of cases.


Use of Interrogatories in Civil and Criminal cases

Carefully designed Interrogatories are a tool to extract helpful information from OP. Read more info here.

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) Order XI – Discovery and Inspection (read with Sec 30) has the necessary Rules to be following to file an application for delivery of interrogatories in a Civil case like DVC, HMA24 etc.

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Section 287 provides a similar provision in Criminal cases in which a commission is issued.

Case laws here.


Usage of Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.)

If you are going to fight your case on your own as Party-in-person, make good use of Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.), which allows you to represent your co-accused, most probably, your parents or family members.

Same Rules apply to folks in Telangana State too. Some case laws here.


Absent Petition

You can seek exemption for self or other accused from appearing in the Court on a particular singular date in a case u/s 317 CrPC.

You can send your duly-filled, stamped and signed absent petitions to the Office of Superintendent of the Court where your case is going on, well in advance, with a cover letter to place your Absent petition on the Bench.


Non-bailable Warrants (NBWs) for arrest

It is highly possible that trial courts may issue NBWs at the drop of the hat. Despite having bail for the said accused already. So to overcome this issue, once has to file a Recall petition seeking recall of the NBW. Use these judgments here, to tide over this menace.

The general procedure is issue summons first, then bailable warrants and finally non-bailable warrants for arrest of accused. As per BNSS, such serving of these instruments is permissible through electronic means too as per this decision.

In case NBWs are issued and petition for recall of the same (u/s 70(2) CrPC) are refused/dismissed, you can file Revision at the Appellate Court (u/s 397 CrPC). Use these judgments here


Speedy Trial

Our right to Fair and Speedy Trial arises from Article 21 (read with Article 227) . The case laws are here. A landmark judgment is here which also refers to section 483 CrPC. Article 227 also is a remedy.


Arrest unnecessary adjournments

Tareeq pe tareeq epidemic can easily be addressed taking help u/s 309(2) CrPC which is amended by Act 5 of 2009, s. 21 (w.e.f. 1-11-2010). Read the Landmark judgment which insisted on the importance, utility and urgent need of Trial/Session Courts to use the 4th Proviso to this sub-section here (2013). A 2017 reportable decision here. Also Read the other judgments here (included AP HC case law).

Also if prosecution fails to bring the witnesses to Court for examination, Courts can deny granting adjournments as held here.

Also if prosecution or defence try to delay Cross-examination of a witness, Courts can at max defer to 3 days as held here and can also levy heavy fines as held in this tagline here.

It is held by the Apex Court here that, Chief Examination & Cross-Examination Of Witness Must Be Recorded On The Same Day Or Following Day. Another similar case law here.


Recording of Prosecution Evidence

This is a part of the broader Examination Stage, wherein Prosecution brings forward all their Witnesses and Evidences necessary to convict the accused persons. This is mandated u/s 273 CrPC. While the rule says, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, there is one exception to it, that is, when the attendance of accused is dispensed with (under any of sections 205 or 317), then the prosecution evidence can be recorded by the Court, in the absence of the accused, but in the presence of the pleader of the accused. And such evidence of prosecution may be recorded, when the accused joins the proceedings, virtually through video conferencing. Supporting case law here.


Time-barred Litigation

Time-barred litigation should be attacked using the provision u/s 468 of CrPC.


Register a complaint against Public Servant (No sanction from Government required!!!)

If any Public servant (read as Judge, Magistrate or Police) does something to violate their duty as prescribed u/s 197 CrPC, they are liable for criminal prosecution u/s 166A IPC. Read full details here. Karnataka High Court clearly explains this here.


Discharge Petition

If the prosecution documents do not have any basis to connect you to the allegation listed in Charge sheet by Police, this is one opportunity to find the grounds and file a Discharge Petition and come out the case. Check out the landmark case laws here. Especially, B S Neelakanta judgment.


Case Calendar

The common frustration defence has with Prosecution in a false case is, absconding of the prosecution witnesses from Cross-examination. For obvious reasons, false case filers generally, do not appear for Cross examination. To tackle such scenarios, you can use the Supreme Court judgment to force the Trial judge to come up with case calendar for the entire case, which is available here.


Only 6 months Stay on Proceedings

It is common knowledge that one party goes to higher courts seeking to stay proceedings in lower court. Supreme Court has restricting this behavior of endless stay on proceedings which is impacting the disposal of cases in timely manner in this judgment here.


During Cross examination of Lying witnesses

Make good use of this set of legal weapons from Indian Evidence Act 1872.

 

59. Proof of facts by oral evidence. –– All facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence.

60. Oral evidence must be direct. –– Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say ––
if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;
if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds:
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable.
Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.

61. Proof of contents of documents. –– The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.

101. Burden of proof. –– Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

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

 

132. Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate. –– A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind:
Proviso. –– Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer.

138. Order of examinations. –– Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. A landmark judgment is available here.

146. Questions lawful in cross-examination. –– When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any questions which tend––
(1) to test his veracity,
(2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or
(3) to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him, or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture:
Provided that in a prosecution for an offence under section 376, 3[section 376A, section 376AB section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or for attempt to commit any such offence, where the question of consent is an issue, it shall not be permissible to adduce evidence or to put questions in the cross-examination of the victim as to the general immoral character, or previous sexual experience, of such victim with any person for proving such consent or the quality of consent.

155. Impeaching credit of witness. –– The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him: ––
(1) By the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit;
(2) By proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;
(3) By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted;
Explanation. –– A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit may not, upon his examination-in-chief, give reasons for his belief, but he may be asked his reasons in cross-examination, and the answers which he gives cannot be contradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.

159. Refreshing memory. –– A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory.
The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be correct.
When witness may use copy of document to refresh memory. –– Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such document:
Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original. An expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises.

160. Testimony to facts stated in document mentioned in section 159. ––A witness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such document as is mentioned in section 159, although he has no specific recollection of the facts themselves, if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document.


Objections raised by Prosecution or Court during the Examination/Evidence Stage:

It is possible that either the Prosecution or the Court may raise objections to the questions put to the Prosecution witnesses during Cross Examination stage. Use this judgment here to get the questions and deposition recorded properly.


Prosecution witnesses absent for the Examination/Evidence Stage:

Cr.P.C. (u/s 284 and 285 onwards) provides for issuing commissions which will go to the place where the prosecution witness resides and record the deposition. Use this sample here to tighten the screws of the lying (and absenting) complainant.


Arguments

Then comes the crucial stage of Arguments. You can submit oral arguments before the Court and also file written arguments which must be made part of the case record/bundle. This is covered under section 314 of Cr.P.C. and the Trial Courts must not refuse them to be brought on record of case. Check these cases here.


Perjury is nearby

Let the OP lie in Court. Just ensure you have the truth (hint: evidences) with you. Perjury will be awaiting just in case an illegal order gets to be passed. Here are the Case laws.


Contempt Jurisdiction to the rescue

If no order gets passed due to Perjury, let the Contempt jurisdiction take care of falsifications, material concealments, forgeries etc. Again do let the OP lie and cheat, which comes to them naturally. You can get punishment and fine levied upon the OP under the following provisions. Few case here.

  1. Article 129 of the Constitution of India (At Supreme Court)
  2. Article 142 of the Constitution of India (At Supreme Court)
  3. Article 215 of the Constitution of India (At High Courts)
  4. Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (here is the Act)

Compensation

 


Delay in Pronouncing Judgments

Sometimes, Courts take enormous amount of time in pronouncing the Judgments after reserving the same. Supreme Court gave directions that can be used by us. One such landmark judgment is here. This tag here has some more judgments.


Obtaining copy of the Judgment/Order for free

Order passed under

  • Section 204(3) CrPC: Summon (in a summons-case) or Warrant (in a warrants-case) issued u/s 204(1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. (Also obtain the list of prosecution witnesses !!)
  • Section 248(1) CrPC: Acquittal Order after Trail
  • Section 249 CrPC: Discharge from a non-cognizable or a compoundable case, if the complainant is absent
  • Section 252 CrPC: Conviction Order in case of guilty plea.
  • Section 256 CrPC: Acquittal Order in case of non-appearance or death of complainant
  • Section 257 CrPC: Acquittal Order in case of withdrawal of complaint
  • Section 258 CrPC: Acquittal or Discharge of an accused due to stoppage of proceedings by Magistrate
  • Section 24 of PWDV Act 2005: Court to give copies of order free of cost.

Certified copies of Docket Order

If you want to obtain certified copies of the docket order in any case, no Court can deny because the docket order is very much part of Court record. If the Copy or/and Filing sections rerutn your copy application (CA) by giving an objection like, a permission petition has to be filed, take help from this case laws here.


Reasoned Orders/Judgments

The hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is the quality of reasons given against each issue/charge framed at the beginning of the decision. This decision here is just one which emphasizes the same.


Remedies against Malicious Prosecution in India

Check out this page here.

 


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Posted in LLB Study Material | Tagged All Reliefs from Judiciary Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Article 227 - Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court BNSS Sec 530 - Trial and proceedings to be held in electronic mode BNSS Sec 70 - Proof of service in such cases and when serving officer not present Costs For Contempt Of Court CPC Order 11 - Discovery and Inspection Criminal Rules of Practice Rule 37 - One Accused May Be Permitted To Represent Other CrPC 164 - Recording of Confessions and Statements CrPC 173 - Report of Police Officer on Completion of Investigation CrPC 173(5) - Prosecution Can Produce Additional Documents CrPC 197 - Prosecution of Judges and public servants CrPC 205 – Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused CrPC 207 - Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents CrPC 239 - When accused shall be discharged CrPC 273 - Evidence to be taken in presence of accused CrPC 284 - When attendance of witness may be dispensed with and commission issued CrPC 285 - Commission to whom to be issued CrPC 287 - Parties may examine witnesses CrPC 309 - Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings CrPC 314 - Oral arguments and memorandum of arguments CrPC 317 - Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases CrPC 397/399 - Revision CrPC 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation CrPC 483 - Duty of High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over Courts of Judicial Magistrates CrPC 73 - Warrant may be directed to any person Fine For Contempt Of Court Imprisonment For Contempt Of Court Interrogatories IPC 166A - Public servant disobeying direction under law Perjury Under 340 CrPC Remedies against Malicious Prosecution in India Work-In-Progress Article | 4 Comments

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
cbn_era CBN Era @cbn_era ·
14h

Remember this June 4 th 🤡😂😁
వై నాట్ 175 మావిగన్ మట్టయ్య రాష్ట్ర ప్రజలు నీకు తద్దినం పెట్టిన రోజు 😂🤡😁😄

Reply on Twitter 2062555515771846900 Retweet on Twitter 2062555515771846900 26 Like on Twitter 2062555515771846900 124 X 2062555515771846900
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
thebetterindia The Better India @thebetterindia ·
16h

On World Environment Day, we look back at a journey that redefined how India sees conservation.

From 70+ global film festivals to packed screenings across India, Turtle Walker brings to life the extraordinary 4,000-km coastal journey of Satish Bhaskar—an IIT graduate who chose

Reply on Twitter 2062530987981144492 Retweet on Twitter 2062530987981144492 8 Like on Twitter 2062530987981144492 31 X 2062530987981144492
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
sathyashrii SriSathya @sathyashrii ·
16h

Pregnant Yoga Teacher shows remarkable Balance & Flexibility... 🔥🔥

Reply on Twitter 2062520020308238483 Retweet on Twitter 2062520020308238483 25 Like on Twitter 2062520020308238483 170 X 2062520020308238483
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
swathireddytdp Swathi Reddy @swathireddytdp ·
19h

ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్ APCNF కి ప్రపంచ గుర్తింపు!
Food Planet Prize 2026 - $1.5 మిలియన్ గెలుచుకుంది 🏆

18 లక్షల రైతు కుటుంబాలు రసాయనాలు లేని, వాతావరణ సహజ సేద్యం వైపు మళ్లాయి.
స్వీడన్ Curt Bergfors Foundation ఈ అవార్డు ఇచ్చింది.

#andhrapradesh #chandrababunaidu

Reply on Twitter 2062482940660175332 Retweet on Twitter 2062482940660175332 9 Like on Twitter 2062482940660175332 39 X 2062482940660175332
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Are Offices of Dowry Prohibition Officers in AP designated as Police Stations? June 3, 2026
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 June 2, 2026
  • Chidurala Shyamsubder Vs State of Telangana on 27 Aug 2018 May 28, 2026
  • Birendra Kumar Tiwari Vs Neetu Tiwari on 07 Dec 2022 May 27, 2026
  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 May 26, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,837 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,367 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,199 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,469 views)
  • Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025 (2,127 views)
  • Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 (2,093 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,007 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (1,877 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,788 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,581 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (433)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (411)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (381)Landmark Case (381)1-Judge Bench Decision (361)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)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (752)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (327)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 (73)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (70)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (61)LLB Study Material (58)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 Telangana 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 (2)
  • 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

  • ICN (Seoul) on 2026-06-17 June 17, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 17, 17:00 - 22:00 UTC Jun 4, 13:40 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ICN (Seoul) datacenter on 2026-06-17 between 17:00 and 22:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
  • Cloudflare Storage Maintenance June 15, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 15, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC May 28, 22:16 UTC Scheduled - Cloudflare has scheduled maintenance for our backend storage systems. Services will continue to operate normally, but customers will be unable to create/delete/modify tunnels, routes, hostname routes, virtual networks, devices and tunnel configurations via the Dashboard or the public […]
  • EWR (Newark) on 2026-06-11 June 11, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 11, 06:00 - 14:00 UTC Jun 4, 13:40 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in EWR (Newark) datacenter on 2026-06-11 between 06:00 and 14:00 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

  • 93.92.77.170 | SD June 4, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 80 | First: 2026-06-04 | Last: 2026-06-04
  • 182.161.69.41 | S June 4, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 8 | First: 2011-03-18 | Last: 2026-06-04
  • 34.186.78.139 | S June 4, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2 | First: 2026-06-04 | Last: 2026-06-04
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 583 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel