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: Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to

Dalip Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The Supreme Court bench has delivered this landmark judgment calling out the cherished two basic values of life i.e., `Satya’ (truth) and `Ahimsa’ (non-violence) in Indian Society and exclaimed that,

“In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.“

Dalip Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198000498/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aed8e4b0149711414dd7

Citations: [2010 SCC CRI 1 324], [2010 SCC 2 114], [2009 SCALE 14 473], [2010 AIC 85 13], [2010 AIR SC SUPP 116], [2010 AIR SC 0 50], [2010 SCJ 1 863], [2009 JT 15 201], [2009 SLT 9 167], [2009 AIOL 1294], [2009 SUPREME 8 485], [2010 ALL LJ 1 536], [2010 MADLJ 2 483], [2010 AIR SCW 50]


Index of perjury case laws here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Dalip Singh Landmark Case Perjury - Approached Court with Unclean Hands Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Anticipatory Bail Orders

Posted on May 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Anticipatory bail granted in cases filed under various IPC sections. The bare section is here.

Supreme Court of India

  1. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc Vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980 [Landmark Judgment: AB valid until end of Trial; No FIR necessary for grant of AB]
  2. Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs N.C.T. Delhi and Anr on 23 Mar 2001 [Guidelines for grant of bail even in a Non-bailable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life]
  3. Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 2 July 2014 [Landmark Judgment: No automatic arrest in all cases with punishment less than or up to 7 years]
  4. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 2 December, 2010 [Landmark Judgment: AB valid until end of Trial]
  5. Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs State of Gujarat and Anr on 1 Sep 2015 [Ground for grant of AB]
  6. Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 15 May, 2018
    • Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January 2020 [Landmark Judgment: AB valid until end of Trial]
  7. Dr. Rajesh Pratap Giri Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 05 Mar 2021 [No need to go and obtain Regular Bail after filing of Charge sheet by IO, if Anticipatory Bail was granted earlier]
  8. Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022 [No Payments when allowing Anticipatory Bail]
  9. Monirul Islam Vs The State of West Bengal on 01 Dec 2022 [AB cannot passed for a fixed time period]
  10. Bimla Tiwari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 Jan 2023 [Criminal Proceedings cannot be converted into Recovery Proceedings]
  11. Kunal Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 05 Dec 2023 [A condition to take wife to home is untenable while granting anticipatory bail]

 

 

Allahabad High Court

  1. Javed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 13 Feb 2023 [Relies on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia; FIR is not a pre-condition to grant AB, but Reasonable Apprehension Of Being Arrested has to be explained]

 

Bombay High Court

  1. Chandra Kanjappa Kuchchikurwe Vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr. on 14 December, 2012

 

Kerala High Court

  1. Koshore Vs State of Kerala on 16 February, 2016
  2. Shelbin Vs State of Kerala on 16 February, 2018

 

District Courts

  1. In re:- Arnab Rao @ Arnad Roa

Index of all Bail matters is here.

Posted in File a Petition | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Criminal Proceedings cannot be converted into Recovery Proceedings CrPC Sec 438 - Anticipatory Bail Summary Post Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 18 March, 2009

Posted on May 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment from Apex Court, Hon’ble Bench has, in detail, explained the procedure before framing charges and the discharge procedure thereof.

 

Ajoy Kumar Ghose vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 18 March, 2009

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs State Of Jharkhand and Anr Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 239 - When accused shall be discharged CrPC 245 - When accused shall be discharged CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes | Leave a comment

Divorce Judgments

Posted on April 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the listing of divorce grant judgments on various grounds as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

NOTE: This will be a running document, meaning, it will be frequently updated with judgments as and when I find them.

Supreme Court Judgments

  1. Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah Vs Prabhawati on 19 Oct 1956 [Definition of Desertion]
  2. Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326
  3. Sureshta Devi Vs Om Prakash on 7 February, 1991 [MCD set-aside as consent was obtained fraudulently]
  4. V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 [contours of “mental cruelty” defined such that parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together]
  5. Savitri Pandey Vs Prem Chandra Pandey on 8 Jan 2002 [Cruelty defined; Recommended a Time limit of 90 days to file appeal against judgments in cases under HMA resulting in amendment: Act 50 of 2003 The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 on 2003-10-23, whereby Time limit to file appeal against judgments of FC is increased from 30 days to 90 days, passed under HMA and SMA only]
  6. Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate Vs Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate on 16 April, 2003 [Divorce set-aside for Mental Cruelty and character assassination of husband reasons]
  7. Naveen Kohli Vs Neelu Kohli on 21 March, 2006
  8. Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007 [deprived of each other’s company and denial of conjugal relationship by the other spouse, with no effort by the respondent/wife to resume matrimonial relationship, is an act of cruelty]
  9. Hitesh Bhatnagar Vs Deepa Bhatnagar on 18 Apr 2011 [Mutual consent must continue till decree under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and either party can withdraw consent before divorce is granted.]
  10. Pankaj Mahajan vs Dimple @ Kajal on 30 September, 2011 [constantly giving threats of suicide is cruelty]
  11. Vishwanath Vs Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal on 4 July, 2012
  12. U.Sree Vs U.Srinivas on 11 December, 2012 [False and baseless allegation cause mental cruelty]
  13. K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa on 22 February, 2013
  14. Vidhya Viswanathan vs Kartik Balakrishnan on 22 September, 2014
  15. K. Srinivas Vs K. Sunita on 19 November, 2014 [filing of the false complaint against the husband and his family members ‘regarding unsubstantiated allegations of dowry demand’ also constitutes mental cruelty for the purpose of Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act]
  16. Narendra Vs K.Meena on 6 October, 2016 [Separating husband from Parents is ground]
  17. Amardeep Singh Vs Harveen Kaur on 12 Sep 2017 [Guidelines to waive off cooling period of 6 months in MCD cases; The statutory period (of 6 months – 18 months) contemplated under Section 13-B(2) of the Act is directory and that it is open to the Court to exercise discretion]
  18. Harjinder Singh Vs Rajpal on 17 January, 2018 [MCD with 22 lakhs settlement]
  19. Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs Rani Suneela Rani on 19 November, 2019 [Filing false cases solid ground for Divorce on the ground of Cruelty]
  20. Mangayarkarasi Vs M Yuvraj on 03 March 2020 []
  21. Amit Kumar Vs Suman Beniwal on 11 Dec 2021 [Further Guidelines to waive off cooling period of 6 months in MCD cases]
  22. N.Rajendran Vs S.Valli on 03 Feb 2022 [Dead Marriage dissolved under power of Article 142 of the Constitution]
  23. Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 01 May 2023 [Landmark Judgment on Dead Marriages]
  24. Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023 [Landmark Judgment on Dead Marriages]
  25. Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024 [Interim Maintenance granted in DVC; Marriage terminated under Article 142; Alimony of 2 Crore granted]
  26. Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 [SC: Landmark Judgment on Dead Marriages, since the couple lived together only for 80 days and have lived separately since, multiple litigations against each other and no child, the marriage is dead; Rs.25 Lakhs alimony granted]
  27. Vibhor Garg Vs Neha on 14 Jul 2025 [Electronic recording is evidence and no violation of right to privacy]
  28. Pradeep Bhardwaj Vs Priya on 15 July 2025 [ Divorce granted under Article 142 citing irretrievable breakdown after 16 years of separation and enhanced maintenance]
  29. Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs Manju Sharma on 27 Feb 2009
  30. Ann Saurabh Dutt Vs Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt on 12 May 2026 [SC : A wife pursuing her career and prioritising her child’s welfare cannot be accused of cruelty or desertion.]

Andhra Pradesh High Court

  1. Jelakara Chandra Sekhar Vs Nil on 16 Jun 2022 [MCD within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship u/s 14 HMA]
  2.  

Allahabad High Court

  1. Layak Singh Vs Ekta Kumari on 21 Mar 2024 [MCD within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship u/s 14 HMA]

Bombay High Court

  1. Devendra Vs Trupti Devendra on 27 Sep 2022 [Seeking maintenance for daughter after MCD]
  2. Sneha Akshay Garg and Anr Vs Nil on 25 Jul 2024 [Waiting of cooling off period; if conditions in Amardeep Singh Vs Harveen Kaur on 12 Sep 2017 are met]
  3.  

Calcutta High Court

  1. Subhash Chandra Das Chowdhury Vs Sandhya Das Chowdhury on 18 July 2008

Chhattisgarh High Court

  1. Resham Lal Dewangan Vs Suman Dewangan on 09 May 2025 [Once a divorce decree is granted on the ground that wife is living in adultery then, wife suffers from the disqualification to claim maintenance from her ex-husband]

Delhi High Court

  1. Jiten Bhalla Vs Gaytri Bajaj on 08 Sep 2008 [MCD obtained; 3 years later disputed]
  2. Shalu Ojha Vs Prashant Ojha on 28 Ferbuary, 2019 [Divorce set-aside]
  3. Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 30 June 2020 [In a contest between right to privacy and right to fair trial, both of which arise under expansive Art. 21, right to privacy may have to yield to right to fair trial]
  4. Kulvinder Singh Gehlot Vs Parmila on 22 Aug 2023 [Long continuous separation; false allegations;Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage]
  5. Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar on 05 Sep 2023 [Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage]
  6. Pallavi Mohan Vs Raghu Menon on 12 Sep 2023 [Time limit to file appeal against judgments of FC is increased from 30 days to 90 days, passed under HMA and SMA only. For any other cases like Maintenance cases u/s 125 Cr.P.C. the time limit is 30 days only because Parliament did not amend the FC Act yet!]
  7. Deepti Vs Anil Kumar on 19 Sep 2023 [Family Courts cannot grant divorce on ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage]
  8. Gaurav Nighawan Vs Shweta on 05 Jan 2024 [Cruelty not established but desertion is implicitly established]
  9. Payal Sethi Vs Rohit Sethi on 09 Jan 2024 [repeated threats to commit suicide and the attempt to commit suicide was held to be an action amounting to cruelty; relies on decisions of Apex Court in Mangayarkarasi, K Srinivas, Pankaj Mahajan]
  10. Nikhil Wadhawan Vs Priti Wadhawan on 05 Feb 2024 [Unwarranted interference of the parents and the family members of the respondent in the matrimonial life of the appellant]
  11. Kanwal Kishore Girdhar Vs Seema Girdhar on 28 Feb 2024 [Alleging false adultery and igniting animosity in children towards father is cruelty, valid ground for divorce]
  12. Pramod Vs Umesh at Poonam on 01 Mar 2024 [False and baseless allegation cause mental cruelty]
  13. Shivi Bansal Vs Gaurav Bansal on 16 Jul 2024 [Impleadment of Paramour is not necessary to decide divorce petition on adultery ground]

Jharkhand High Court

  1. Dr. Pankaj Kumar Vs Prerna on 16 Dec 2020 [Time limit to file appeal against judgments in cases under HMA, SMA is 90 days but not 30 days as prescribed under FC Act]

Karnataka High Court

  1. Divya Ganesh Nallur Vs Ganesh Nallur Shivu on 08 Jun 2023 (MCD after settlement)
  2. Sushil Daddimani and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Mar 2024 [MCD within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship u/s 14 HMA]
  3. H P Komala Vs N Ravikumar on 29 Jul 2024 (Stay of divorce proceedings until arrears of interim maintenance is paid)

Kerala High Court

  1. Vishnudas H. and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Jul 2020 [MCD within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship u/s 14 HMA]
  2. Arun K.R Vs Arunima T.S on 24 Mar 2025 [Husband Doesn’t Show Interest In Sex, Prefers Only Spiritual Pursuits]
  3. Anup Disalva and Anr Vs Union of India on 09 Dec 2022 [Cooling off period is optional]
  4. Emilda Varghese @ Rajani Vs Varghese P Kuriakose on 6 Oct 2025 [Divorce upheld on cruelty ground]
  5. Vijay R. Nair Vs Lijitha on 12 Jun 2026 [Order for Permanent Alimony set aside since wife contracted second marriage]

Madras High Court

  1. R.Natarajan Vs. Sujatha Vasudevan on August 29, 2011
  2. V.Rajesh Vs S.Anupriya on 04 Jun 2025 [Unestablished allegations of sexual harassment is cruelty]
  3. Shivkarthik G.S and Anr Vs Nil on 04 Sep 2025 [Waiving of cooling off period in a Christian Divorce by Mutual consent]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

  1. Smt. Sangita Nigam Vs Saurabh Nigam on 22 November, 2017 (Also Desertion ground)
  2. Aarti Vs Kishan Meena on 22 Aug 2024 (Cruelty and Desertion grounds)
  3. Anjali Sharma Vs Raman Upadhyay on 16 Jun 2025 [Illegally obtained WhatsApp chat is admissible as evidence in a Family Court]

Patna High Court

  1. Rekha Devi Vs Mahesh Kumar on 16 January, 2018
  2. Sanjay Kumar Shaw Vs Anjali Kumari Shaw on 07 Apr 2025 [No evidence for mental disorder (schizophrenia) so divorce denied]

Punjab and Haryana High Court

  1. Shashi Vs Sunny Bhumbla on 9 January, 2012 (MCD with 1.25 lakhs settlement)
  2. Pratham Singh vs Rajesh on 3 December, 2014 (Also Desertion ground)
  3. Jagbir Singh vs Nisha on 11 March, 2015

Telangana High Court

  1. Dandamudi Phani Krishna Vs Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna on 22 Mar 2024 [MCD within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship u/s 14 HMA]
  2. Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 [Evidence for Divorce in first Marriage, impleadment of a co-respondent, Desertion and status of previous marriage]

MASTER SITEMAP here.


Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Divorce Law in India

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Section 13) provides several grounds for divorce, including:

  • Cruelty (mental or physical)
  • Desertion for a continuous period
  • Adultery
  • Mental disorder
  • Conversion to another religion
  • Venereal disease
  • Renunciation of the world
  • Presumption of death

Many judicial decisions interpret these grounds and clarify what conduct qualifies as cruelty or desertion.

Mental cruelty refers to conduct that causes severe emotional suffering or mental distress to a spouse, making it impossible to continue marital life. Courts have held that false criminal complaints, humiliation, threats, or persistent harassment can constitute mental cruelty.

Desertion occurs when one spouse abandons the other without reasonable cause and without consent, with the intention of ending marital cohabitation. Courts evaluate both physical separation and intention to desert while deciding such cases.

Divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act allows spouses to dissolve their marriage by agreement. Both parties must jointly state that they have been living separately and cannot live together anymore.

The Supreme Court has clarified that the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2) is not mandatory and can be waived by courts if the marriage has irretrievably broken down and reconciliation is not possible.

The Supreme Court of India, using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, can dissolve a marriage when it finds that the relationship has irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation.

However, ordinary family courts cannot grant divorce solely on this ground unless recognised under law

Yes. Courts have repeatedly held that false accusations of adultery, dowry harassment, or criminal misconduct against a spouse may amount to mental cruelty, which is a valid ground for divorce.

Yes. Judicial decisions have held that continuous threats or attempts of suicide by a spouse can amount to mental cruelty, as it causes severe emotional distress and makes matrimonial life intolerable.

Under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a divorce petition cannot ordinarily be filed within one year of marriage. However, courts may allow it earlier if there are exceptional circumstances or extreme hardship.

Yes. Courts may grant permanent alimony or maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act depending on factors such as income, financial condition, and needs of the spouse.

Courts have increasingly accepted electronic evidence such as recordings, messages, and digital communications if they are relevant and admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.

Yes. A divorce decree can be challenged by filing an appeal before a higher court within the statutory time limit. Courts can set aside divorce orders if they find procedural errors, fraud, or lack of evidence.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Consent For MCD Disputed HM Act 13(B) - MCD Granted After Settlement HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband Sandeep Pamarati Summary Post Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007

Posted on April 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment from a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Dalveer Bhandari has enumerated some of the illustrations of mental cruelty citing Judgments of England, America, Canada and Australia.

Intro

The appellant and the respondent are senior officials of the Indian Administrative Service, The respondent was a divorcee and had a female child from her first marriage. The custody of the said child was given to her by the District Court of Patna where the respondent had obtained a decree of divorce against her first husband, Debashish Gupta, who was also an I.A.S. officer. The respondent’s first husband, Debashish Gupta filed a belated appeal against the decree of divorce obtained by her from the District Court of Patna. Therefore, during the pendency of the appeal, she literally persuaded the appellant to agree to the marriage immediately so that the appeal of Debashish Gupta may become infructuous.

The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.12.1984.

… In these circumstances, the appellant has prayed that it would not be possible to continue the marriage with the respondent and he eventually filed a suit for the grant of divorce. In the suit for divorce filed by the appellant in Alipur, Calcutta, the respondent filed her written statement and denied the averments. The learned Additional District Judge came to the finding that the appellant has succeeded in proving the case of mental cruelty against the respondent, therefore, the decree was granted by the order dated 19.12.1996 and the marriage between the parties was dissolved. 

 

The Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment dated 20.5.2003 reversed the judgment of the Additional District Judge on the ground that the appellant has not been able to prove the allegation of mental cruelty.

 

Key Points

Such a vital decision cannot be taken unilaterally after marriage by the respondent and if taken unilaterally, it may amount to mental cruelty to the appellant.

The finding of the High Court that the appellant started living with the respondent amounted to condonation of the act of cruelty is unsustainable in law.

The finding of the High Court that the respondent’s refusal to cook food for the appellant could not amount to mental cruelty as she had to go to office, is not sustainable….. The question was not of cooking food, but wife’s cooking food only for herself and not for the husband would be a clear instance of causing annoyance which may lead to mental cruelty.

The High Court’s finding that the husband and wife might be sleeping in separate rooms did not lead to a conclusion that they did not cohabit and to justify this by saying that the respondent was highly educated and holding a high post was entirely unsustainable. Once the respondent accepted to become the wife of the appellant, she had to respect the marital bond and discharge obligations of marital life.

During illness, particularly in a nuclear family, the husband normally looks after and supports his wife and similarly, he would expect the same from her. The respondent’s total indifference and neglect of the appellant during his illness would certainly lead to great annoyance leading to mental cruelty.

The credibility of the witness does not depend upon his financial standing or social status only. A witness which is natural and truthful should be accepted irrespective of his/her financial standing or social status.

… the appellant and the respondent have been living separately for more than sixteen and half years (since 27.8.1990). The entire substratum of the marriage has already disappeared. During this long period, the parties did not spend a single minute together. The appellant had undergone bye-pass surgery even then the respondent did not bother to enquire about his health even on telephone. Now the parties have no feelings and emotions towards each other.

 

Mental Cruelty Guidelines

No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of ‘mental cruelty’. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.

Samar_Ghosh_vs_Jaya_Ghosh_on_26_March,_2007

Citations : [2007 SCC 4 511], [2007 SUPREME 3 26], [2007 JT 5 569], [2007 CTC 3 464], [2007 BLJR 2 1047], [2007 RCR CIVIL 2 595], [2007 RAJ 2 177], [2007 ALD SC 4 11], [2007 ALL SCR 0 881], [2007 SCALE 5 1], [2007 SCC 4 411], [2007 SLJ SC 2 705], [2007 ALT 3 62], [2007 DMC 1 597], [2007 SCJ 3 253], [2007 WBLR 3 525], [2007 GHJ 16 204], [2007 KERLT 2 55], [2007 RAJLW 2 1357], [2007 AWC 5 4820], [2007 CLT 2 72], [2007 JCIVC 2 1028], [2007 SLT 4 76], [2007 AIOL 339], [2007 BOMCR SC 6 834], [2007 SCR 4 428], [2007 GUJ LR 2 1520], [2007 MADLJ 2 1185]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/766894/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae45e4b01497114135d2


The index page is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Justice Dalveer Bhandari Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Mental Cruelty Reportable Judgement or Order Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Decisions of Civil Courts are binding on the Criminal Courts

Posted on April 16, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Listed here are Judgments in support of legal point

Decisions of Civil Courts are binding on the Criminal Courts

  1. Karam Chand Ganga Prasad And Anr. Vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 October, 1970
  2. Battula Siva Nageshwar Rao Vs Jasti Venkateswara Rao & Another on 31 March, 2016
  3. Krishan Jeet Singh Vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 2002
  4.  
Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Civil Courts Decisions Binding Criminal Courts Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes | Leave a comment

Lifecycle Stages of a Section 498A IPC Case

Posted on April 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Listed below are a reasonably laid out sequence of events in a Criminal Case filed under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The section is available here.


Other Life Cycles: DV Case Lifecycle || Maintenance Case u/s 125 CrPC Lifecycle. Index is here.


Initial signs of facing a false criminal case u/s 498A IPC

These days awareness of women about gender-biased laws in India has enormously increased partly due to movies and men do not need any special sign to know that they (and others in his family) are going to face false matrimonial litigation. The women are telling in your face that they will hoist a false litigation and *send you to jail* (this being the sole goal). So listen/observe carefully for such utterances and record them. This is evidence. Safe guard it. Being idiotic (read still believing that the woman will come back to his home and lead a happy marital life is a oasis) is your choice. Hope you do not regret that decision later when one or some in your family die due to false litigation (and the stigma/defamation it causes to your family)

Filing of false complaint and registration of FIR

Another must-happen is that the women hoist the false complaints only at their parental home to leverage the local feelings. (caste, regional connections will be invoked). There is a bad judgment also now to support them in this. Go find it here.

Officer in charge of the Station (Station House Officer-SHO) assigns an officer of cadre Inspector to register FIR and investigate the allegations in the complaint. This person is called as Investigation Officer (I/O).

 

Anticipatory Bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

If there are any other serious cognizable offences in the FIR (Check First Schedule in Cr.P.C. book which lists some I.P.C. offences along with details such as if a case is a cognizable and/or bailable) which may attract 7 years or more punishment. Then immediately go for Anticipatory Bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. at Sessions Court first and on failure there go to High Court. Landmark Arnesh Kumar judgment is here. The thing to note here is that once a AB is granted in a case (FIR), the protection continues until the end of trial. Landmark case law of Sushila Aggarwal is here. Another note is, no need to convert AB into Regular Bail. Do not entertain any nonsense here.

 

Notice u/s 41A of CrPC

Misuse of arresting Power of Police was held to be illegal and hence Apex Court directed all DGPs of all States that they issue directions to the entire Police in their states, not to automatically arrest accused person after registering FIR but to issue a Notice to all accused to join the inquiry u/s 41A of Cr.P.C. The Arnesh Kumar judgment is here.

The Result:

Arrests (only with respect to Dowry Prohibition Act offences as an example here; No 1 cause used to support most of all false matrimonial cases) reduced considerably. Didn’t stop though. Most of the I.O.s of these arrests have committed Contempt of Court by arresting the accused (Immediately approach State High Court with a Contempt Petition). A simple RTI application to National Crime Record Bureau asking “in how many arrests under this Act, a notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C. was issued” would open up the blatant disregard for the decision of Supreme Court.

Gender-wise split of arrests… See, how many mothers and sisters were arrested in false matrimonial litigation in India, only under Dowry Prohibition Act.

 

Obtaining Station Bail

If Police arrested you or your family members, before you obtain Anticipatory Bail, one can give sureties to Police and obtain Station Bail. No need to give any ‘fees’ to Police.

Obtaining Default Bail

Per Section 167 Cr.P.C., if I/O is unable to complete investigation within 24 hours of apprehending you or your family, he is supposed to present you before Jurisdictional Magistrate and seek Police custody. Magistrate may remand you to Police Custody for maximum 15 days.

Obtaining Regular Bail u/s 437 CrPC

If Police do not allow you Station Bail and put you in Police custody, you or your family members, can go before Jurisdiction Court and file petition u/s 437 CrPC for obtaining Regular Bail, by giving sureties to Court. No need to give any ‘fees’ to Court. Court will grant Regular Bail while imposing certain conditions.

Quashing the FIR at High Court u/s 482 CrPC

Learn what is a Quash (not squash; it is a sport) Petition and how to make good use of it at High Court here. Then read how a baseless, maliciously motivated FIR may be quashed here.

Filing of Charge sheet by I/O

I/O does investigation to gather material and witnesses supporting the allegation and based on this outcome, files a Closure report (with reasons) or a Charge sheet (u/s 173 Cr.P.C.) into the jurisdictional Court.

Minimum documents that I/O should submit to Court along with Charge sheet (this set of documents are also called as Challan)

  1. Complaint
  2. FIR (Signature of the complaint to be taken)
  3. Statements of Prosecution Witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (No signature of witness to be taken on these statements
  4. Typed Charge sheet
  5. Rough Sketch of the alleged crime scene/location
  6. Entries from Police Station Case Dairy
  7. Any documentary evidences obtained
  8. Notice issued to the complainant (so that complainant can protect any removal of accused/section from charge sheet)
  9. Delete memo (if any filed by I/O into Court)
  10. Arrest memo, Bail bonds, ID proofs of accused

 

Protest Petition

Once charge sheet is filed into the trial Court, the Court issues a notice to the de facto complainant indicating that their initial report have reached the Court in the form of a final report (which can be either a closure report indicating the police could establish the allegation in the report or a charge sheet indicating that the police could establish the allegation in the report by way of evidence and witness).

The de facto complainant can choose to object to the final report filed into the Court either or removal/diluting of sections or removal of accused from the FIR. There is no section of law from this in the Cr.P.C.

 

Initial Appearance in Court

It will take some time before the filing section of the Court gives a C.C. (calendar case) number to your case and issues summons to you and other accused to appear before Court and participate in Court proceedings.

On being present, these activities must happen (i) Recording Your identity and attendance, (ii) Inquiry about Engagement of own advocate or need of any Legal Aid advocate, (iii) Copies of Prosecution documents given to each accused present in Court and (iv) next date given for framing of charges.

Court provides (I/O provides actually) the following to each accused person, one copy as prescribed u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

  1. Complaint
  2. FIR (Signature of the complaint to be taken)
  3. Statements of Prosecution Witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (No signature of witness to be taken on these statements
  4. Typed Charge sheet
  5. Rough Sketch of the alleged crime scene/location

You can obtain certified copy of any other documents by filing a copy application in copy section of the Court.

 

Discharge from case u/s 239 CrPC

Discharge petition helps accused person to come out of false litigation (Best case – All accused may be discharged from all offences in Charge sheet; worst case – Husband may have to face 498A IPC but other sections and accused may be discharged). Read when to invoke a Discharge Petition at the trial court itself here. There are a few good judgments pertaining to Discharge here. Read this judgement here to success in your discharge.

If your Discharge petition is dismissed baselessly (reason given by Magistrate is, every ground you raised is a matter of trail), your remedy is to file Revision at Sessions Court within limitation petition.

Framing of Charges

After conducting a hearing (hearing before charge – HBC stage) to complainant and accused, Magistrate will read out the charges from the charge sheet, in the language understood by accused and ask if he/she pleads guilty. If accused prays guilty, Magistrate will record such confession and move to next stage. If charges are denied then Magistrate will proceed to frame charges on the accused persons and issue a charge framing order.

Even though this is an interlocutory order, it is nevertheless a judicial order, so this can also be challenged at High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Begin of Criminal Trial

This is a criminal trial so all remedies available under Cr.P.C. can be gainfully invoked to benefit accused persons. The following are some.

Section 201 Cr.P.C. can be invoked if complainant tries to erase statutory (Marriage certificate, divorce decree, land/property documents) financial, medical, mobile, electronic (email, sms, whatsapp, video, audio) evidence which would destroy her case.

Section 202 Cr.P.C. can be invoked if truth is concealed and lies are recorded in complaint to police.

Section 205 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to dispense with personal attendance of accused. Standard forms may be available at/near courts. Fill, attach Rs.2/5 Court Stamp and file at Bench or Filing section. Prosecution will object. During hearing, plead the grounds (distance/out-station, health, advanced age etc)

Section 317 Cr.P.C. can be invoked on a per-appearance basis, if 205 petition above is not allowed.

If you are a Party-in-person, then invoke Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders 1990 for High Court of A.P. here. Due to this, one accused can represent (not plead/argue) other accused persons. Using this, ensure your parents and relatives do not suffer due to travels involved.

Section 256 Cr.P.C. can be invoked if the complainant herself is not appearing nor the Assistant PP, you can pray to Court to acquit the accused. If the complainant is represented by advocate, then to mark that stage as null and proceed further. If Magistrate doesn’t oblige, file a Memo praying same, so your prayer goes on record of Court in the case. Same, if complainant dies too.

Section 91 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to summon any document held by any authority, public or private.

Try this only after exhausting Formal communication channels with the document-holding entity and via RTI Act. Else, Court will dismiss your application. Few more remedies are here.

Quash the case u/s 482 CrPC

At any point in time during trail of this case, if there appears any grounds basis which the Court shall not proceed against accused persons, they can approach High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

Examination of Complainant and Prosecution witnesses

Examination stage has two phases: Chief Examination and Cross Examination.

While examination, evidences to support either side may be submitted to Court and get them marked/numbered.

Evidence of Complainant and witnesses

Chief Examination: Complainant gives their deposition to Court. This can be filed via an affidavit. Similarly, witnesses will also finish their Examination-in-chief.

Cross-examination of Complainant and witnesses

Cross Examination: Complainant (and her witnesses) is put questions by Defence Advocate to test the veracity of truth in her allegations. Use Section 159 (Refreshing memory) of Indian Evidence Act cleverly.

Examination of Accused and Defence witnesses u/s 313 CrPC

The landmark judgment (from 2000) which held that physical presence of accused persons is NOT required for examination, if they do not have anything to say is here. Recent Karnataka HC judgment here.

Evidence of Accused

Rarely, does the need arises for accused to produce any evidence.

Cross-examination of Accused and Defence witnesses

If presented, Accused/defence witnesses/evidences have to go through Cross examination phase.

Court’s Power to Examine Accused

The Court has power to examine the Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

Arguments

Advocates take turns and introduce their arguments, based on the Examination stage and Evidences brought on record of the Court. Once Oral arguments are finished, written arguments may also be submitted to Court. This is covered u/s 314 Cr.P.C.

Judgment (Acquittal/Conviction)

After conclusion of arguments, Court reserves the judgment, as Magistrate has to write the judgment. Once ready with Judgment, Magistrate pronounces the Judgment in the Open Court in the presence of parties involved in the case.

Revision/Appeal

sfdsd


Settlement/Compromise

In Andhra Pradesh, 498A IPC is made compoundable through an amendment to Cr.P.C. (a Central Act, 2 of 1974) in 2003 under Code of Criminal Procedure (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2003 wherein both sections 494 IPC and 498A IPC were added to the list of Compoundable offences u/s 320 Cr.P.C. The sections 494, 495, 496 and 497 IPC were earlier also made Cognizable and non-bailable in Andhra Pradesh by another State Amendment.

So, this made it possible to compromise/settle 498A IPC cases (may be coupled with other offences such as 307, 406, 420, 506 IPC or Sec 3, 4, 6 of DP Act etc.) before Lok Adalat which is empowered to take up Compoundable cases as per sec 19(5) of Legal Services Authority Act 1987. So the parties can make an application to DLSA, MLSA, TLSA, as the case may be, and get their case compromised.

 

 


 

Posted in Legal Procedure | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to IPC 494 Compoundable Offence in Andhra Pradesh IPC 498A - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty IPC 498A Compoundable Offence in Andhra Pradesh Life Cycles of Various case types Work-In-Progress Article | 2 Comments

Supreme Court and High Court Judgments to cite in Discharge (u/s 227 or 239) or Quash petition (u/s 482)

Posted on April 6, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list the Supreme Court of India judgments applicable to various legal grounds to go for Discharge u/s 227 or 239 or 245 and Quash u/s 482.

Included few High Court judgments too for reference. Read the individual judgments to find the operative text of the respective judgments.

There are quite a few legal grounds on the basis of which a case can be discharged at Magistrate/Sessions Court or Quashed (High Court and Supreme Court).

Note1: Read State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004 to understand that during Quash proceedings at High Court, Evidence of Sterling/Unimpeachable Quality from Defence/Accused can be adduced to dismantle the case of Prosecution at Trial Court.)

Note2: Second 482 CrPC petition is maintainable as per Landmark judgment in ‘Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs Mohan Singh and Ors on 08 Oct 1974‘.

Note3: A Petition under section 482 CrPC is maintainable even when a Revision is available under 397/401 CrPC says, ‘Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 17 Dec 2008‘. This view is re-affirmed by a 3-Judge bench of Supreme Court in, Prabhu Chawla Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 05 Sep 2016.

Note4: Read recent landmark decision of a Full bench of the Apex Court on when to/not to Quash a FIR/case in ‘Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors‘ [2021 SCC ONLINE SC 315]

Note4: In recent landmark judgment Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr on 02 Sep 2025, Supreme Court issued 4-steps test/procedure to be followed by High Courts, in alleged False Rape cases.

Note: If you want to read this thread from beginning, go here.

No Jurisdiction Judgments

  1. Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 5 October, 1999 (1999) 8 SCC 728
  2. Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors Vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr on 17 August, 2004
  3. Manish Ratan And Others Vs State Of M.P And Another on 01 Nov 2006
  4. Sonu and others Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another on 10 October, 2007
  5. Bhura Ram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 2 April, 2008
  6. Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 17 October, 2012 (Includes delay in complaint, vague allegations)
  7. Sivangala Thandi Deepak & Others Vs The State of A.P. on 11 July 2014
  8. Amarendu Jyoti And Others vs. State Of Chhattisgarh And Others on 4 Aug, 2014
  9. Sudhir Mansinghka Vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 August, 2015
  10. Amit Kumar Yadav And Others vs State Of Telangana on 11 September, 2015 (AP High Court judgment; Includes delay in complaint, perjury)
  11. G.Ramamoorthy Vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2017
  12. Manoj Vishwakarma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 September, 2017
  13. Vishnu Mohan Jha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 21 November, 2017
  14. Yadwinder Singh & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 August, 2018
  15. Rupali Devi Vs State of UP and Ors on 09 April, 2019 (Bad law: No territorial Jurisdiction is applicable in 498A IPC cases); Interestingly, no other new/overruling judgment till date.

 

Vague and General and omnibus Allegations

  1. MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997 (Complaint Case)
  2. Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998 (Complaint Case)
  3. B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003 (High Courts can quash a FIR or non-compoundable cases also not listed under CrPC 320)
  4. Neelu Chopra and Anr Vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009
  5. Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010
  6. Joseph Salvaraj A Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 4 Jul 2011 [SC: Quash can be done even after charge sheet is filed by Police]
  7. Gian Singh Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012 (Scenarios when a criminal proceeding can be quashed)
  8. Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs. Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and others on 25 September, 2012
  9. Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014
  10. Sandeep Singh Bais Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2017
  11. Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018 [Chattisgarh HC: DV on relatives quashed who do not have shared household]
  12. Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018 (AP High Court)
  13. Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. Anr on 03 Apr 2019 (Telangana High Court: No evidence of Dowry Transaction)
  14. Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (Conviction of 498A IPC set aside due to settlement; Cites BS Joshi caselaw)
  15. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022 (498A IPC quashed due to General and Omnibus allegations)
  16. Krishnanand Mishra and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand on 09 Aug 2023 [Jharkhand HC: Misuse of Section 498A IPC; General and Omnibus allegations]
  17. Rajan and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 17 Aug 2023 [Package of 5 cases laid on parents of husband]
  18. Abhishek Gour Vs State of MP on 31 Aug 2023 [SC: Quash can be done even after charge sheet is filed by Police]
  19. Rakesh Rajput and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 31 Oct 2023 [Jharkhand HC: Misuse of Section 498A IPC; General and Omnibus allegations]
  20. Mamta Shailesh Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors on 29 Jan 2024 [SC: Quash can be done even after charge sheet is filed by Police]
  21. Mainoddin Vs State of Karnataka on 02 Feb 2024 [Relied on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar]
  22. Mamida Anil Kumar Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Feb 2024 [Relying on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar, Apex Court trashed the nonsensical decision of AP High Court]
  23. Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 2024 [DHC: Relied on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar]
  24. Mathi Vijaya Lakshmi and Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 03 May 2024 [TelHC: Relied on Category 1 of Bhajan lal and Preethi Gupta]
  25. CB Prakash and Anr Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 04 Jun 2024 [KarHC: Relied on Kahkashan Kausar]
  26. Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and Anr Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 28 Aug 2024 [SC: FIR can be quashed even after filing of CS]
  27. Payal Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 26 Nov 2024 [SC: FIR can be quashed even after filing of CS]
  28. Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024 [SC: Counterblast case]
  29. Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025 [DHC: Making generic and ambiguous allegations is abuse of process of law]
  30. Raj Kamal Yadav and Anr Vs Manju Yadav and Other on 7 Aug 2025 [DHC: Making generic and ambiguous allegations against distant relatives is abuse of process of law]
  31. Tushar Sampat Mane and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 8 Aug 2025 [BomHC : holding allegations were vague, exaggerated, and not grave enough to constitute cruelty under IPC.]
  32. Sanjay D Jain and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 26 Sep 2025 [SC: Making generic and ambiguous allegations is abuse of process of law, Vague and general allegations cannot lead to forming of a prima facie case]
  33. Asha G Vs State of Karnataka on 6 Jan 2026 [KarHC : Neighbours cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC]
  34. Asish Bera & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr on 30 Jan 2026 [CalHC : Quashed due to lack of material and duplicate complaints.]
  35. Dr.Sushil Kumar Purbey and Anr Vs The State of Bihar and Ors on 9 Mar 2026 [SC :Quashed criminal proceedings against in-laws, held that identical omnibus allegations cannot justify differential treatment]
  36. Charul Shukla Vs State of UP and Ors on 25 Mar 2026 [SC : FIR against in-laws quashed due to vague allegations, lack of evidence, and unexplained delay.]
  37. Sivaraman Nair and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Anr on 24 Apr 2026 [SC : Quashes criminal proceedings against in-laws, emphasising absence of specific allegations and misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes.]
  38. Ishwar Chand Sharma and Ors Vs State of U.P. on 29 May 2026 [SC: False POCSO case quashed due to vague allegations]

 

Allegations do not attract provisions of Sections in FIR

  1. R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960
  2. Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane on 19 March, 1975
  3. State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy AIR 1977 SC 1489 [Inadequate material to sustain the charge of prosecution]
  4. Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare v State of Maharashtra & Ors 1990 (2) RCR 18
  5. State Of Haryana Vs Ch Bhajan Lal on 21 November, 1990 [A set of subsequent case laws arose from this landmark judgment]
  6. Richhpal Kaur v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2)
  7. V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 AIR 1994 SC 710
  8. State of H.P.V Nikku Ram & Ors 1995 (6) SCC 219
  9. Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration and Anr on 31 July 1996
  10. Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy AIR 1998 SC 121
  11. Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P.; (2002) 7 SCC 414
  12. Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078
  13. Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 2003 (Delhi High Court)
  14. Manju Ram Kalita vs State Of Assam on 29 May, 2009 (Conviction under IPC 498A set aside)
  15. Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
  16. U.Suvetha Vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009 (Concubine is not a relative of husband)
  17. Shakson Belthissor Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009 [Allegations do not attract 498A IPC ingredients]
  18. Vijeta Gajra Vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 July, 2010
  19. Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010 [SC: Family members who are residing away from accused No.1 cannot be roped into the case]
  20. Sunita Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 September, 2010
  21. S Praveen Vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012
  22. Asha Devi & Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 24 July, 2012
  23. Banti And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2012
  24. Movva Raja Ram Vs State Of A.P. on 18 June, 2013
  25. State Of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh on 2 July, 2014
  26. Babita Sumanprakash Soni Vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 December, 2014 (Concubine is not a relative of husband; IPC 494 is not applicable on concubine)
  27. Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015
  28. Gayathri Kunjithaya Vs State Of Kerala On 19 January 2015
  29. Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 February 2015 [Overruled Appasaheb and Vipin Jaiswal]
  30. Dr. Rajneesh Satyadev Rajpurohit Vs Magistrate No.3 on 16 April, 2015
  31. Shaik Riayazun Bee Vs The State Of A.P. on 1 June, 2016
  32. Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017 [Allegations do not attract 498A and 406 IPC ingredients]
  33. Subramani Vs The Sub-Inspector Of Police on 31 October, 2017 (Marriage should be there, to apply IPC 498A)
  34. K R Nandakumar Vs State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2018
  35. K. Subba Rao Vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2018
  36. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 11 Nov 2020 [allegations do not attract the provision of IPC 306; Separate FIRs Filed At Different Jurisdictions And In Same Incident Under Same Offence NOT allowed]
  37. Samad Habib Mithani and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 25 Jul 2024 [relying on R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab, Family members cannot be roped into the case]
  38. Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024 [relying on R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab, Achin Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Bhajan Lal, quashed proceedings; 211 IPC also suggested]
  39. Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024 [MPHC:absence of specific date and time when the complainant-wife was subjected to the demand of dowry is sufficient to quash Dowry demand allegation]

 

Maliciously Instituted/ Counterblast cases/ Delay Not explained Cases

  1. State of Karnataka Vs M. Devendrappa and Anr on 16 Jan 2002 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
  2. Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007 [Time-barred u/s 468]
  3. Priya Vrat Singh & Ors Vs Shyam Ji Sahai on 5 August, 2008
  4. State Of A.P Vs M. Madhusudhan Rao on 24 October, 2008
  5. MS Eicher Tractors Ltd and Ors Vs Harihar Singh and Anr on 7 Nov 2008 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
  6. Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
  7. Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012 [Various liberal principles in condoning delays under Sec 5 of Limitation Act; Time limitation applies to Govt instrumentality-appellant]
  8. Rajiv Thapar and Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013 [SC: guidelines to/not to quash/discharge]
  9. Vineet Kumar And Ors Vs State Of UP & Anr on 31 March, 2017
  10. State vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017
  11. Chandresh Shrivastava Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2018
  12. Dudekula Khasim Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 Mar 2020 [APHC: Counterblast case to Husband’s divorce case]
  13. Abhishek Singh Vs State of M.P. on 26 Dec 2022 [MPHC: 498A IPC covers invalid marriages also]
  14. Swapan Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal on 21 Aug 2023 [CalHC: proceeding are instituted only to fulfil personal grudge; Category 1 of Bhajan lal]
  15. Achin Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Anr on 03 May 2024 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
  16. Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 15 May 2024 [SC: FIR which was lodged after 39 days of the incident, does not indicate the date or time]
  17. Musin Babulal Thengade and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 29 Jan 2025 [BomHC: Limitation for prosecution under Section 498-A does not continue for indefinite period]
  18. Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 [SC: DVC proceedings quash for same allegations under Article 142 of Constitution]
  19. Arshad Neyaz Khan Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 24 Sep 2025 [SC: IPC 420 Vs IPC 406]

 

Material evidence required that supports allegations

  1. R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960
  2. Hira Lal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2865
  3. Kaliyaperumal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828
  4. CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005
  5. Parkash Singh Badal and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 6 December 2006 [there prima facie appears existence of any material and not the sufficiency of the materials]
  6. Ran Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr, Case no. appeal (Crl) 222 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3089 of 2006
  7. M. Srinivasulu v. State of A.P., AIR 2007 SC 3146
  8. Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 763 [Overruled in Rajinder Singh here]
  9. Shivanand Mallappa Koti v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 2314
  10. Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 3050
  11. Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013 [Demand of Property has to be in connection with marriage, as per Sec 2 of DP Act 1961] [Overruled in Rajinder Singh here]
  12. Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013 [Part-paid dowry is in Connection with Marriage]
  13. M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020 [Demand of Property has to be in connection with marriage, as per Sec 2 of DP Act 1961]

 

Approaching Court with unclean hands

  1. All Perjury judgments can be gainfully utilized. They are here.

 

498A IPC not maintainable due to null and void marriage/Earlier Divorce

  1. Shivcharan Lal Verma and Anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 19 Feb 2002 [SC]
  2. Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam And Others on 8 Jan 2004 [SC: Held as per incuriam]
  3. Mohit Gupta and Ors vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 16 Oct 2006 [DelHC]
  4. Mohammad Miyan and Ors Vs State of UP on 21 Aug 2018 [SC: Earlier divorced hence offences of IPC 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act is not tenable/maintainable]
  5. Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021 [TSHC: Relying on Mohammad Miyan, Earlier divorced hence offences of IPC 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act is not tenable/maintainable]
  6. Kode Narasimha Kumar and Ors Vs State of AP on 10 Nov 2022 [APHC: Relying on Mohammad Miyan, Earlier divorced hence offences of IPC 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act is not tenable/maintainable]
  7. P Sivakumar and 2 Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 09 Feb 2023 [SC]
  8. Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023 [KarHC]
  9. M.Sreenivasulu and Ors Vs State of AP and Ors on 15 May 2024 [APHC]

 

Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C.

  1. All discharge judgments u/s 227 CrPC can be found here.

 

Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C.

  1. All discharge judgments u/s 239 CrPC can be found here.

 

 


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Counterblast case CrPC 227 - Discharged CrPC 239 - Discharged CrPC 482 - Quash CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court CrPC 482 โ€“ Criminal Proceeding Quashed IPC 494 - Not Made Out Against Woman IPC 498a - Not Made Out Is Not Relative Of Husband Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases Mala Fide Untenable Maliciously Instituted Case Solely Intended to Harass No Material To Sustain Charge No Territorial Jurisdiction Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ’ช๐Ÿ‘จ๐Ÿปโ€๐ŸŽ“ 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 ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ’ช๐Ÿ‘จ๐Ÿปโ€๐ŸŽ“ Retweeted
kanekoathegreat KanekoaTheGreat @kanekoathegreat ·
2 Aug

RFK Jr. blasts CNN's Dana Bash over COVID:

BASH: "You're the HHS security and you're leading to vaccine hesitancy."

KENNEDY: "Do you see your job as ending vaccine hesitancy or telling the truth?"

BASH: "The truth is that there is study after study."

KENNEDY: "You're

Reply on Twitter 2084032302464860218 Retweet on Twitter 2084032302464860218 2081 Like on Twitter 2084032302464860218 9508 X 2084032302464860218
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ’ช๐Ÿ‘จ๐Ÿปโ€๐ŸŽ“ Retweeted
capitallens_ Pratham @capitallens_ ·
21h

Reality Check ๐Ÿค

A men tested 1 batch of Everest Garam Masala in lab costing โ‚น28,000.

After testing, the results that came will shock you:

Azoxystrobin (Pesticide used in Masala):

Limit~ 0.1 mg/kg
Actual~ 0.200 mg/kg
Difference~ 2x

Means according to FSSAI standards limits

Reply on Twitter 2084166590602563711 Retweet on Twitter 2084166590602563711 553 Like on Twitter 2084166590602563711 1825 X 2084166590602563711
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ’ช๐Ÿ‘จ๐Ÿปโ€๐ŸŽ“ Retweeted
sailu_jsp Sailu๐Ÿฆš @sailu_jsp ·
18h

เฐ…เฐฆเฑ‡ Kalyan เฐ—เฐพเฐฐเฑ เฐ…เฐงเฐฟเฐ•เฐพเฐฐเฐ‚เฐฒเฑ‹เฐ•เฐฟ เฐตเฐšเฑเฐšเฐฟเฐจ 24 เฐจเฑ†เฐฒเฐฒเฐฒเฑ‹ เฐˆ เฐ•เฐณเฐพเฐ•เฐพเฐฐเฑเฐฒ เฐ•เฑ‹เฐธเฐ‚ เฐชเฑเฐฐเฐคเฑเฐฏเฑ‡เฐ•เฐ‚เฐ—เฐพ "WoodBanks" เฐเฐฐเฑเฐชเฐพเฐŸเฑเฐšเฑ‡เฐถเฐพเฐฐเฑ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿป๐Ÿ™๐Ÿป

"เฐฎเฑ€ เฐฆเฐฏ เฐตเฐฒเฐจ เฐ…เฐ‚เฐ•เฑเฐกเฑ เฐ•เฐฐเฑเฐฐเฐ•เฑ เฐเฐคเฑ‡ เฐŽเฐŸเฑเฐตเฐ‚เฐŸเฐฟ เฐ‡เฐฌเฑเฐฌเฐ‚เฐฆเฐฟ เฐฒเฑ‡เฐ•เฑเฐ‚เฐกเฐพ เฐ…เฐฏเฑเฐฏเฐฟเฐ‚เฐฆเฐฟ Sir '"๐Ÿ™๐Ÿป๐Ÿ˜Š

:- AP เฐนเฐธเฑเฐคเฐ•เฐณเฐพ เฐชเฑเฐฐเฐฆเฐฐเฑเฐถเฐจ เฐฎเฐนเฑ‹เฐคเฑเฐธเฐตเฐ‚เฐฒเฑ‹

เฐฎเฐจ Hon'ble @APDeputyCMO เฐถเฑเฐฐเฑ€ @PawanKalyan เฐ—เฐพเฐฐเฐฟเฐคเฑ‹ เฐ•เฐณเฐพเฐ•เฐพเฐฐเฑเฐฒเฑ โฃ๏ธ

Reply on Twitter 2084209810027979069 Retweet on Twitter 2084209810027979069 75 Like on Twitter 2084209810027979069 218 X 2084209810027979069
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ’ช๐Ÿ‘จ๐Ÿปโ€๐ŸŽ“ Retweeted
hunterxtwt hunter @hunterxtwt ·
2 Aug

Reply on Twitter 2083781294614573423 Retweet on Twitter 2083781294614573423 1454 Like on Twitter 2083781294614573423 27719 X 2083781294614573423
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Ishwar Chand Sharma and Ors Vs State of U.P. on 29 May 2026 July 26, 2026
  • Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram and Anr Vs Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar and Anr on 21 Jul 2026 July 26, 2026
  • Shikha Lall Vs Prince Agarwal on 7 Nov 2024 July 21, 2026
  • Pranjal Poddar and Ors Vs Shivani Gupta on 21 Apr 2026 July 21, 2026
  • Sharad Kumar Pandey Vs Mamta Pandey on 1 Sep 2010 July 21, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice โ€“ Format with Legal Explanation (5,145 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (3,171 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,550 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (2,148 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case โ€“ Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (2,086 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? โ€“ Legal Position Explained (2,054 views)
  • Life Cycle of a Perjury Case (2,028 views)
  • Application for Certified Copy of FIR โ€“ Format, Procedure and Sample Draft (1,772 views)
  • Appeal, Revision and Review Explained (1,743 views)
  • Life Cycle Stages of a Restitution of Conjugal Rights Case (1,703 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (439)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (424)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (387)Landmark Case (384)1-Judge Bench Decision (370)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (298)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (91)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (70)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (760)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (187)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (167)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (95)Legal Procedure (83)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (51)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (47)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)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 (28)

Recent Comments

  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice โ€“ Format with Legal Explanation
  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases โ€“ Complete Legal Strategy
  • 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)

Archives of SoK

  • July 2026 (19)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • 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

  • EWR (Newark) on 2026-09-02 September 2, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Sep 2, 05:00 - 09:00 UTC Jul 21, 15:30 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in EWR (Newark) datacenter on 2026-09-02 between 05:00 and 09:00 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

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 141.98.84.74 | SD August 3, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 254 | First: 2026-07-13 | Last: 2026-08-03
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 459 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel