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: Baseless or Convoluted Judgment

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

Mohan Murari Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 16 Oct 2020

Posted on October 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is so cute judgment where in to get Anticipatory Bail, husband has to pay maintenance to knife in Divorce matter husband filed. Aaa baile mujhe maat…

Mohan Murari Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 16 Oct 2020

Here is the jewel of the Order given at Patna High Court.

Mohan Murari Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 20 Sep 2019

This is precisely why I advocate quick disposal of civil matters… A helpful compilation is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail Granted Mohan Murari Vs State of Bihar and Anr | Leave a comment

Sameer Saxena Vs State and Anr on 07 March 2011

Posted on June 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

After failure at Delhi High Court here, Supreme Court dismissed the SLP summarily. Sad!

Sameer Saxena Vs State and Anr on 07 March 2011
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr Sameer Saxena Vs State and Anr | Leave a comment

Chitranjan Dev Goel and Ors Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors on 21 March 2016

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Basing on the Pooja Saxena case here, Parents of women who were alleged to have committed the crime of giving dowry were let free.

Chitranjan Dev Goel and Ors Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors on 21 March 2016

Citations: [2016 SCC ONLINE DEL 2130], [2016 DLT CN B 229 30]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134987777/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5728e42ee56109277ee48517

https://www.quickcompany.in/judgements/judgement-7b760d46-8b0b-48bd-9a45-794161ac3e2c

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment Chitranjan Dev Goel and Ors Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases | Leave a comment

Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors on 16 April 2003

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice K C Bhanu from AP High Court has held as follows:

From Para 2,

2. Petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 224/1995. Chinna Chowk Police laid a charge-sheet against him, his parents and three sisters for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”. A single charge under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act was framed against petitioner and A-2. After conclusion of trial and before judgment, the learned Magistrate framed separate charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act against petitioner and A-2 and recalled P.Ws. 1 to 3 and cross-examination them. During their cross-examination, P.Ws. 1 to 3 admitted that they had given Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and presented gold jewels worth Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner and his father. At that stage, petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 4073/1998 before the Trial Court under Section 319, Cr.P.C, to implead P.Ws. 1 to 4 as accused for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, to be tried along with the other accused in the case, since both the giver and taker of dowry are equally liable for punishment under the Act. The learned Magistrate dismissed that application against which petitioner filed Crl. R.P. No. 15/1999 before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision  holding that P.Ws. 1 to 4 cannot be tried as accused in the same trial as they are protected under Section 7(3) of the Act. It is as against the order of dismissal of the revision, A-1 filed the present petitioner to quash the said order.

From Para 7,

7. A plain reading of the above provision would go to show that giving or taking of dowry as well as abetment of giving or taking of dowry is an offence punishable under the Act. On the basis of the statements made before the Court by P.Ws. 1 to 3 admitting that they gave dowry, can they be tried as accused in the same trial, is the question.

From Para 10,

10. If P.Ws. 1 to 4, who were examined as witnesses, are added as accused and arrayed in the list, of the accused persons, the proceedings in respect of them shall have to be commenced afresh and thewitnesses reheard. It means they have to give evidence against themselves, which is not permissible under law. Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution provides that no person accused of any offenceshall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This protection is available to the person accused ofan offence not merely with respect to the evidence to be given in the Court-room in the course of trial butis also available to him at the previous stages, if an accusation has been made against him which might, in the normal course, result in his prosecution. It follows that the protection is available to a person againstwhom the formal accusation has been made though the actual trial may not have commenced as yet andif such an accusation relates to the commission of an offence which in the normal course may result in prosecution. In view of the above provisions, the witnesses cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves. Therefore, P.Ws. 1 to 4, cannot be arrayed as accused along with petitioner and others in the same proceedings. If the Court wants to proceed against the persons of giving dowry, then it has to resort to the provision under Section 7 of the Act. Section 7(1)(b) of the Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon its own knowledge, or a police report of the facts which constitute such offence, or a complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or other relative of such person or by any recognized welfare institution or organization.

Further Section 7(3) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the timebeing in force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.

Fundamental mistake in this case is, why police are NOT booking the Dowry givers asmushas Dowry takers in the FIR? Because in some States, Police circulars were issues precluding the Dowry givers from prosecution. So Police themselves decided that Dowry givers are not to be booked, which is totally contrary to what is said in Section 3(1).

Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors on 16 April 2003

Citations: [2004 DMC 2 49], [2003 ALD 2 91], [2003 ALT CRI 2 253]

Other Source links:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f83ce4b0149711141d5d

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91122848/

 

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases | Leave a comment

Ram Gopal Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand on 03 December 2008

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice NN Tiwari had held as follows (without any legal basis):

From Para 6,

6. Learned Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the ground for assailing the impugned order by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and baseless. From the allegations made in the complaint, it is evident that the accused persons were demanding dowry and torturing the complainant for not bringing the dowry as desired by them. The petitioner is wrongly interpreting the presents given by the parents of the complainant, as dowry, which does not come within the ambit of Section 3(1) of the Act. It has been submitted that nothing new has come in course of the inquiry or trial or there is nothing in the evidence on record to suggest that any such offence has been committed by the father of the complainant and learned Court below considering the provisions of law including the provisions of Section 7(3) of the Act has rightly rejected the petitioner’s petition.

From Para 10,

10. The petitioner has sought prosecution on the basis of the statement of giving dowry by the father of the complainant. From perusal of the statement made in the complaint, I find no such incriminating statement of voluntarily giving dowry for marriage. The statement regarding giving presents ‘UPHAR’ does not come within the ambit of definition of dowry. Moreover, the father of the complainant is an aggrieved person from whom dowry was being demanded. Such aggrieved person is protected under Section 7(3) from prosecution under the Act.

 

Ram Gopal Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand on 03 December 2008 (LQ Ver)

Citations: [2008 SCC ONLINE JHAR 385], [2009 AIR JHAR R 1 856], [2009 CRI LJ NOC 614 159], [2009 JLJR 1 432]

Other Source links:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea832d607dba377ff107fd

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Ram-Gopal-Sah-Versus-State-Of-Jharkhand-2008-12-03

Posted in High Court of Jharkhand Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases Ram Gopal Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand | Leave a comment

Yashpal Kumar Vs Bhola Nath Khanna and Anr on 1 March 2012

Posted on June 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a Delhi High Court judgment where a certain conclusion is made without basis. Just an earlier judgment is cited as support even that one lacks justification. Funny.

From Para 8,

8. It is thus evident that Section 7 (3) is a non obstante clause and will thus prevail on any other law for the time being in force and a statement made by a person aggrieved by the offence under this Act shall not subject him to prosecution under this Act. Thus the decision of this Court in Neera Singh (supra) is an obiter and does not constitute a binding precedent for the reasons that the provisions of DP Act 1961 were not subject matter of the dispute before the Court in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Neera Singh’s case and thus, this Court did not take into consideration the provisions under Section 7 (3) of the DP Act.

From Para 9,

9. Further there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner being the father of the victim girl was not an
“aggrieved person”. Section 7(3) of the DP Act bars cognizance of a complaint against the person aggrieved by the offence. It cannot be said that only “aggrieved person” would be the victim girl. Even the father of the victim girl, who was made to give dowry, would be an aggrieved person. Similar view has been taken in Ram Gopal Sah v. State of Jharkhand, II (2009) DMC 844.

No one explains how/why should the Dowry giving criminals (as per Sec 3(1) should be protected from prosecution along with their daughter, who can be considered an aggrieved person!!!

 

Yashpal Kumar Vs Bhola Nath Khanna and Anr on 1 March 2012

Citations: [2012 AD DEL 3 186], [2012 DMC 2 134], [2012 SCC ONLINE DEL 1261]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160230226/

https://www.legitquest.com/case/yashpal-kumar-v-bhola-nath-khanna-another/73202

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090e75e4b014971117c483


 

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases Yashpal Kumar Vs Bhola Nath Khanna and Anr | Leave a comment

Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010

Posted on June 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Read through the Para 11 of this Delhi High Judgment to learn how NOT to draw conclusions from thin air u/s 482 CrPC proceedings.

11. The above observation of this Court obviously is an obiter and does not constitute a binding precedent for the reason that the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 were not the subject-matter of the dispute before the court in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Neera Singh’s case. Moreover, in the aforesaid judgment, the Court has not taken into account the protection given to a victim of offence of dowry demand as provided under Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Thus, in my view the above referred judgment is of no avail to respondent No.2. Further, on perusal of FIR No.232/2009, it transpires that as per the allegations in the complaint made by the petitioner, the demand for dowry was made by the father of respondent No.2 at the time of engagement ceremony of the petitioner when he allegedly asked the father of the petitioner to concede to his demand for dowry, failing which he would call off the marriage. From the aforesaid facts, it is obvious that the petitioner and her parents were confronted with the unenviable situation either to concede to the demand or face the loss of honour of their family in the society, and if under that fear, the petitioner and her parents conceded to the demand for dowry, they cannot be faulted as they were victims of the circumstances. Given the aforesaid facts, Section 7(3) comes to the rescue of the petitioner and in terms of the aforesaid provision, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Crux of the failed justice: Clearly from the highlighted portion of the judgment itself, one can understand the conclusion arrived by the Judge is based on the unproved allegations in the complaint which got carried as-is to the FIR. This also goes to show that the Judge has pre-judged that the allegations were true despite the fact that said allegation of demand for dowry is to be punished under Section 4 of DP Act 1961 and this being a Criminal Statute required such allegations to be proven in a Criminal Court trial with evidence. This was given a total bypass possibly in an successful attempt of harmonious interpretation but alas totally contrary to the legislature intent which being that Dowry givers are to be punished. Despite writing that Sec 7(3) gives protection only to the aggrieved person (who made the complaint) her parents are also extended protection from prosecution, which is squarely ultravires to provision, statute and legislature intent and most importantly to Principles of natural justice. Precluding the criminal who allegedly committed the crime of giving dowry even before such fact is proved in a Court trial is travesty of justice.

 

Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010

Citations: [2011 CRIMES 1 378], [2010 JCC 4 2780], [2011 AD DEL 1 359], [2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 3652]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61656909/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090d12e4b0149711178c8d


Further story here.

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

R D Vs B D on 31 July, 2019

Posted on August 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Another dirty judgment, this time from High Court of Delhi.

R D Vs B D on 31 July, 2019
Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment CrPC 125 - Maintenance Granted CrPC 125 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents Maintenance under both 125 CrPC and HMA is Maintainable Multiple Maintenances Orders PIL - CrPC 125 Must Go From Statute Book R D Vs B D

Inder Singh Vs Sumitra on 05 August, 2019

Posted on August 7, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Do you know how to misinterpret laws? Don’t know? Learn from this judgment from Delhi High Court.

From Paras 12-16,

12. Second proviso to sub section (1) to Section 125 Cr.P.C. stipulates grant of interim maintenance. Reading of second proviso does not in any manner indicate that making of an application seeking interim maintenance is a pre-condition for grant of interim maintenance.

13. The Third proviso to sub section (1) to Section 125 Cr.P.C. stipulates disposal of an application for grant of interim maintenance within a time bound manner.

14. If the second and third proviso to sub section (1) to Section 125 Cr.P.C are read keeping in view the very object of the statute, it shows that there is no requirement stipulated by the statute for making an application for grant of interim maintenance pending consideration of the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. and the Court would be empowered to pass an order assessing interim maintenance even in a case where no such application has been filed by the person claiming maintenance. However, where such an application is made, the same would have to be disposed of by the Trial Court within the time stipulated therein.

15. If a narrower interpretation were to be given to the provision i.e. that an application is a pre-condition for grant of interim maintenance, the same would militate against the very object of the scheme of providing maintenance to a dependant, who is unable to maintain himself/herself, where the person who has sufficient means has refused or neglected to maintain the dependant. (Author: How?)

16. Keeping in view the beneficial object of the statute, it is held that the filing of an application seeking interim maintenance would not be a precondition for grant of interim maintenance pending consideration of the petition seeking maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.. It would be open to the trial court to grant interim maintenance, in the facts and circumstances of the case, pending consideration of the application for grant of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.

Have you ever heard the words: misinterpreting, idiotic, biased, pre-judged, cunning? Sounds applicable to this judgment?

 

Inder Singh Vs Sumitra on 05 August, 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 High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment Inder Singh Vs Sumitra Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj Vs State of A.P and Ors on 15 Jul 1999 May 16, 2023
  • Rajendra Kumar Vs Rukhmani Bisen on 02 Feb 2023 May 16, 2023
  • Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs Rita Dey Chowdhury on 19 Apr 2017 May 15, 2023
  • Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 01 May 2023 May 6, 2023
  • State of AP Vs Mannem Trivikram Reddy on 28 Jun 2017 May 3, 2023

Most Read Posts

  • XYZ Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 05 Aug 2022 (1,871 views)
  • Premchand Vs State of Maharashtra on 03 Mar 2023 (1,080 views)
  • In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (Guidelines Issued) on 31 Jan 2023 (889 views)
  • Y.Narasimha Rao and Ors Vs Y.Venkata Lakshmi and Anr on 9 Jul 1991 (680 views)
  • Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022 (582 views)
  • YS Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 26 Aug 2022 (560 views)
  • Chintakayala Vijay Vs State of AP and Ors on 05 Dec 2022 (550 views)
  • Life Cycle stages of a Public Interest Litigation (WP-PIL) in a High Court (538 views)
  • P Sivakumar and 2 Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 09 Feb 2023 (535 views)
  • Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 01 May 2023 (502 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (334)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (333)Landmark Case (322)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (271)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (220)Work-In-Progress Article (218)1-Judge Bench Decision (155)Sandeep Pamarati (88)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (84)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (75)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (56)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (53)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (52)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (38)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (35)Advocate Antics (34)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (646)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (299)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (159)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (108)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (91)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (66)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (54)General Study Material (54)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 (45)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (41)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (41)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (31)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (17)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on All Reliefs from Judiciary
  • Veena Reddy.T on All Reliefs from Judiciary
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010
  • G Reddeppa on Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010
  • ShadesOfKnife on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022

Archives of SoK

  • May 2023 (5)
  • 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 (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 (34)
  • 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

  • RUH (Riyadh) on 2023-08-23 August 23, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Aug 23, 15:30 - 23:00 UTCMay 22, 21:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in RUH (Riyadh) datacenter on 2023-08-23 between 15:30 and 23:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]
  • RUH (Riyadh) on 2023-08-22 August 22, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Aug 22, 15:30 - 23:00 UTCMay 22, 21:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in RUH (Riyadh) datacenter on 2023-08-22 between 15:30 and 23:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]
  • RUH (Riyadh) on 2023-08-16 August 16, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Aug 16, 15:30 - 23:00 UTCMay 22, 21:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in RUH (Riyadh) datacenter on 2023-08-16 between 15:30 and 23:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 119.254.113.108 | S May 27, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 668 | First: 2020-03-18 | Last: 2023-05-27
  • 162.19.224.64 | SD May 27, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 174 | First: 2023-05-26 | Last: 2023-05-27
  • 192.142.133.20 | SD May 27, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 7,750 | First: 2023-02-27 | Last: 2023-05-27
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 4420 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel