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: Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint

Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand on 28 Sep 2020

Posted on October 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The 3-judge bench again reiterated the usage and importance of Sec 313 CrPC, in this case where the parties very well knew they cannot get married due to their different religions and their parents are opposed to their marriage as they insisted that the marriage happen in a Temple Vs a Church !!!

From Para 6,

9. It stands well settled that circumstances not put to an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him, and must be excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial, the importance of the questions put to an accused are basic to the principles of natural justice as it provides him the opportunity not only to furnish his defence, but also to explain the incriminating circumstances against him. A probable defence raised by an accused is sufficient to rebut the accusation without the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court, time and again, has emphasised the importance of putting all relevant questions to an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand on 28 Sep 2020
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations CrPC 313 - Power to examine the accused Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint False Incest Or Rape Or Sexual Or Sexual Harassment Allegations Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Legal Terrorism Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Bhikaji Wagh on 26 February 2020

Posted on March 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single-judge bench of Bombay High Court highlighted the grounds on which a Legal terrorism was intended to be unleashed on an innocent family u/s 498A IPC, and thwarted it royally.

From Paras 9 and 10

9 Admittedly, complainant (PW-1) led a very happily married life with accused no.1. Their date of marriage is 27th June 1990 and PW-1 left the matrimonial home on 28th March 2001. As per PW-1, accused was given lot of gold, household appliances and Rs.50,000/- within three months of her marriage, which means that these things were given in the year 1990. There is no explanation as to why the complaint was then lodged only on 4th January 2002. According to PW-1, accused no.1 demanded Rs.1 lakh when he saw the retirement benefits cheque in the hand of her father and her father retired on 28th February 2001. The complaint has been lodged on 4th January 2002. The delay is not explained. Moreover, complainant left the house leaving behind her children, who were on the date she left the house were 9 years and 6 years, respectively. PW-1 never filed any custody petition or any petition for divorce. PW-1 filed maintenance petition on 10th March 2003. The delay again has not been explained.

10 It is settled law that delay in lodging the complaint cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the complaint. At the same time, delay has the effect of putting the Court in its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory. If prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay, the delay could be fatal to prosecution.

From Para 11,

11 In this case, there is not even an attempt by the prosecution to explain the delay. It appears that PW-1 had no problems living alone with her
parents but when PW-1 heard from her father that accused no.1 has married accused no.5 (which again has not proved), PW-1 decided to teach accused no.1 a lesson. It is unfortunate that in matters like this even the family members are getting dragged. Prosecution should refrain from dragging allfamily members unless there is enough specific evidence against the family members otherwise provisions of Section 498-A will unfortunately bemisused as a weapon.

Finally, in Para 15,

15 There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to the accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless they are proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured their acquittal, the presumption of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. For acquitting the accused, the Trial Court rightly observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.

State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Bhikaji Wagh on 26 February 2020

Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE BOM 331]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63867796/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e5cd685cfc07432f89ed3dc

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 378 - Appeal In Case Of Acquittal Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives Hearsay Evidence IPC 494 - Not Made Out Legal Terrorism Misuse of IPC 498A Rajesh Sharma and ors. Vs State of UP and Anr State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Bhikaji Wagh | Leave a comment

M.G.M.Joseph Anand Vs Suvitha Suganthi on 28 August, 2018

Posted on January 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Lying knife had the audacity to file criminal and DV cases, after the husband obtained ex parte divorce decree. Both are quashed as improbable to believe cases. Despite this, husband offered to pay 2 Crore rupees to lying knife.

As always, cases are quashed but no malicious prosecution proceedings were initiated by Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

M.G.M.Joseph Anand Vs Suvitha Suganthi on 28 August, 2018

 

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations CrPC 482 – Quashed Due to Out-Of-Court Settlement Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint IPC 406 - Not Made Out M.G.M.Joseph Anand Vs Suvitha Suganthi Mala Fide Untenable Maliciously Instituted Case Solely Intended to Harass | Leave a comment

Sopan @ Dnyandeo Maruti Bawadkar Vs The State of Maharashtra on 05 November, 2012

Posted on December 13, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment delivered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, it was held that the accused be given benefit of doubt in the criminal case of 498a IPC, as the depositions of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses is either hearsay or different from what is averred in the original complaint/FIR.

Sopan @ Dnyandeo Maruti Bawadkar Vs The State of Maharashtra on 05 November, 2012

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint Interested Witnesses Sandeep Pamarati Sopan @ Dnyandeo Maruti Bawadkar Vs The State of Maharashtra | Leave a comment

Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 14 December, 2007

Posted on September 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark quash judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held that IPC 406 and IPC 498A is not made out on the parents of the husband and as such the case on them is quashed.

Highlights

Knife Name: Neetu
Husband Name: Ashutosh Misra

  • He gave me no money for expenditure. When I left Bijnore he gave me only Rs.1/- only. I did not receive any phone from him till 7th November, 1994.
  • He told me that he has no time to go to Cell and to bring me to Bijnore.
  • talk to your father to give you Rs.50,000/- and VCR to bring with you.
  • If you come here alone with the child, we will give you good beatings.
  • Almost 2 weeks ago, Hira Lal informed me that my husband took away all my belongings with him at 4 A.M.
  • she stated that, my father-in-law and sister-in-law clearly warned him that till the time I will not bring Rs.50,000/- cash and V.C.R. they will not keep me.
  • In the charge-sheet, it has been recorded that despite issue of notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the complainant and her father by the ASI, neither the complainant nor her father turned up to take back her Stridhan , which was alleged to be with the appellants. It has been noted that the complainant does not want to take back her Stridhan.

Law point from Para 10,

It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.

From Para 19,

Section 498A I.P.C. was introduced with the avowed object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives.

Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 14 December, 2007

Citations: [2007 SUPREME 8 405], [2008 SCC 2 561], [2008 CRLJ 0 1391], [2008 AIR SC 204], [2008 RCR CRI 1 336], [2008 SCC 1 65], [2007 STPL LE 0 39378], [2008 SCC CRI 1 507], [2008 AD SC 2 398], [2008 BLJR 56 753], [2008 MADLW CRL 2 955], [2008 ACC 60 694], [2008 SCC CRL 1 507], [2008 JT 1 20], [2008 LW CRL 2 955], [2008 ALL MR CRI 1360], [2008 ALT CRI 3 83], [2008 AIR SC 96], [2008 MAHLJ CRI 2 550], [2008 SCC CR 1 507], [2008 CRIMES 1 42], [2008 DRJ 100 3], [2008 UJ 1 107], [2008 MLJ CRI 2 686], [2008 SLT 1 329], [2007 AIOL 1302], [2008 ANJ SC 1 124], [2008 CRLJ SC 1351], [2007 SCALE 14 403], [2007 SCR 13 716], [2008 AIC SC 62 155], [2008 CRI LJ 1391]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1907093/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae46e4b01497114135e4

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 482 – Framing Of Charge Quashed CrPC 482 – IPC 498A Quashed Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint IPC 406 - Not Made Out IPC 406 Dismissed IPC 498a - Not Made Out Against Parents or Relatives Landmark Case Legal Terrorism Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) and Anr Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011

Posted on September 24, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that,

In which it is clearly stated that the police Officer has to question the victim girl, witnesses and contradict the witnesses and record the same. In the present case, the statement of the victim girl is concerned, the investigation officer stated in the charge sheet that he has contacted her and she confirmed the contents of the complaint given by the complainant. This Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer has to confirm the allegations mentioned in the complaint with the aggrieved person. This Court is of the view that the Officer, who is investigating the case, should record the statement as per the above said provisions. The first duty of the Investigating Officer is to find out the probability and truthfulness of her complaint unless otherwise the complainant’s version appraised by the Investigating Officer with the facts and circumstances of the case. Merely recording the statement as stated by the witnesses cannot be called as investigation. Investigation includes examination of the witnesses, confronting the witnesses on the basis of materials collected by the Investigating Officer and also the version of the person who is aggrieved because of the said complaint. Mere reproduction of the complaint without proper examination cannot be called as statement recorded during investigation.

 

Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011

Case Details:

Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011 (Case Details)

Citations: [2011 RCR CRIMINAL 5 452], [2011 CRLJ 3506], [2011 CRIMES 3 236], [2011 DMC 2 655], [2011 SCC ONLINE AP 562], [2011 CRI LJ 3506], [2012 E CR N 1 365]

Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b10ee691cb22da6d1ec2 or https://mynation.net/docs/4921-2010/

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 161 - Examination of Witnesses By Police CrPC 162 - Statements To Police Not To Be Signed - Use Of Statements In Evidence CrPC 188 - Offence Committed Outside India CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes No Territorial Jurisdiction Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. What is Investigation | Leave a comment

Chandralekha Vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 14 December, 2012

Posted on September 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment should have been a reported one for it covers soo many good points to dustbin the complaint of the knife against the family members. Read the tags for more info.

From Para 8,

….

However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed. The allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2 against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2 has tried to rope them in this case along with her husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3.

Chandralekha Vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 14 December, 2012

Citations: [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 1 577], [2012 AIOL 2078], [2013 CRLJ SC 3644], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 969], [2013 SCC 14 374], [2012 SCC CRI 4 426], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 1073], [2013 CRILJ 3644], [2013 AD SC 2 565], [2013 AJR 4 643], [2013 DMC SC 1 1], [2012 JT SC 12 390], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 1 959], [2012 SCALE 12 692], [2013 UC 1 155], [2013 BOMCR CRI 1 577], [2013 CRI LJ 3644]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151787634/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af17e4b014971141594d

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/chandralekha-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-anr

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations Chandralekha Vs State Of Rajasthan and Anr Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives No Territorial Jurisdiction Non-Reportable Judgement or Order Not Continuing Offence Willful Desertion By Knife | Leave a comment

D.Gowthaman Babu Vs State of Tamilnadu on 2 January, 2018

Posted on August 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Madras has rightly held that,

From Para 10,

Admittedly in the case on hand, the 1st respondent police failed to refer the matter to the concerned District Social Welfare Officer and get a report as to whether any dowry harassment is made by the petitioners. In the absence of the adherence to such Mandatory procedures, offences of Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be imputed.

D.Gowthaman Babu Vs State By on 2 January, 2018

 

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed CrPC 482 – IPC 498A Quashed D.Gowthaman Babu Vs State of Tamilnadu Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint | Leave a comment

Priya Vrat Singh & Ors Vs Shyam Ji Sahai on 5 August, 2008

Posted on July 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a quash judgment from Shri Dr.Arijit Pasayat J delivered based on the 7th category of cases, from Bhajan Lal case, that may be quashed is

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

Read more
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint Mala Fide Untenable Maliciously Instituted Case Solely Intended to Harass Priya Vrat Singh and Ors Vs Shyam Ji Sahai | Leave a comment

Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar on 6 January 2015

Posted on July 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The Knife got here DV petition dismissed. LOL

Key points

  1. Unexplained delay
  2. Dowry not proved
  3. No return of articles given voluntarily
Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar on 6 January, 2015

 

Posted in Prakasam DV Cases | Tagged Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint DP Act 4 - Dowry Demand Not Proved Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar No Return of Articles Given Voluntarily PWDV Act - Dismissed On Merits | Leave a comment

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

  • State of Maharashtra Vs Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede on 29 Jul 2009 January 26, 2023
  • Sabiya Begum Malka Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 18 May 2016 January 24, 2023
  • Y.Narasimha Rao and Ors Vs Y.Venkata Lakshmi and Anr on 9 Jul 1991 January 19, 2023
  • Messers S.J.S. Business Enterprises Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 17 Mar 2004 January 17, 2023
  • Ramjas Foundation and Ors vs Union of India and Ors on 9 Nov 2010 January 17, 2023

Most Read Posts

  • Do you know that there is time limit of 60 days to dispose of a Domestic Violence case in India under sec 12(5) of PWDV Act? (9,067 views)
  • XXX Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 05 July 2022 (2,815 views)
  • Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022 (873 views)
  • State Bank of India and Anr Vs Ajay Kumar Sood on 16 Aug 2022 (849 views)
  • Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 23 Aug 2022 (822 views)
  • Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors (716 views)
  • Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (Disposal of DVC in 60 days) (676 views)
  • P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (674 views)
  • Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022 (588 views)
  • Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022 (558 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (323)Reportable Judgement or Order (319)Landmark Case (310)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (259)Work-In-Progress Article (218)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (210)1-Judge Bench Decision (145)Sandeep Pamarati (88)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (79)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (74)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (53)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (52)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (51)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (38)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (34)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 (629)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (297)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)General Study Material (55)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (53)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) (40)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (39)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (30)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (17)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022
  • Vincent on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003
  • Ravi on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003
  • ShadesOfKnife on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022

Archives of SoK

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

Blogroll

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

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Maintenance impacting SSL API availability and certificate issuance February 14, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 14, 14:00 - 16:00 UTCJan 26, 10:38 UTCScheduled - On February 14th, 2023, Cloudflare will be doing database maintenance that will impact SSL API availability and may result in certificate issuance delays. The scheduled maintenance will be on February 14, 2023, 14:00 - 16:00 UTC.During the maintenance window, SSL-related […]
  • FRA (Frankfurt) on 2023-02-07 February 7, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 7, 01:30 - 03:30 UTCFeb 2, 06:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in FRA (Frankfurt) datacenter on 2023-02-07 between 01:30 and 03:30 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 […]
  • ICN (Seoul) on 2023-02-06 February 6, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 6, 17:00 - 23:00 UTCFeb 1, 06:20 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ICN (Seoul) datacenter on 2023-02-06 between 17:00 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

  • 192.142.21.117 | S February 1, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 408 | First: 2023-01-11 | Last: 2023-02-01
  • 192.142.21.82 | S February 1, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 212 | First: 2023-01-11 | Last: 2023-02-01
  • 103.20.11.159 | SD February 1, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 4,199 | First: 2017-01-12 | Last: 2023-02-01
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 468 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel