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

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

Ramesh Chand Vs State of Himachal Pradesh on 11 April, 2017

Posted on May 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Wonderful judgment from High Court of Himachal Pradesh where the Husband was acquitted from IPC 498A for following reasons

  1. 9 months of delay in filing complaint
  2. No specific allegation attracting IPC 498A
  3. Co-accused were acquitted on same set of evidence by lower courts

 

Ramesh Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 April, 2017
Posted in High Court of Himachal Pradesh 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 Acquitted in IPC 498A Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint Ramesh Chand Vs State of Himachal Pradesh | Leave a comment

Geeta Mehrotra and Anr Vs State Of U.P. and Anr on 17 October, 2012

Posted on May 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a popular quash judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of IPC 498A, IPC 504, IPC 506 and 3 & 4 of DP Act.

The grounds on which quash is done are

  1. No territorial jurisdiction
  2. No specific allegations on accused
  3. No justification for delay of 7 years in filing complaint

 

Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 17 October, 2012

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125470413/

Citations: [(2012) 10 SCC 741]


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in 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 Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint DP Act 3 - Not Made Out DP Act 4 - Not Made Out Geeta Mehrotra and Anr Vs State Of U.P. and Anr IPC 506 - Not Made Out Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes No Territorial Jurisdiction Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009

Posted on May 5, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another landmark judgment from Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat as part of a three-judge bench.

Intro

  1. Marriage took place on 25/11/1998
  2. Appellant No.1 left for USA on 1/7/1999
  3. Complaint was filed on 6/2/2000 under Sec.498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
  4. Charge-sheet was filed on 8/6/2000
  5. Divorce petition was filed by the complainant, which appears to have been granted ex parte on 12/7/2001
  6. Complainant – Sukanya has remarried on 24/8/2002

 

Legal points enumerated by their Lordships are

  1. No basis for making the allegations
  2. No explanation for the delayed lodging of the complaint was offered.
  3. Even a cursory perusal of the complaint shows that the case at hand falls within the category (7) of the illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal’s case
    1. “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.”

 

Sundar Babu & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009

The reportable version of judgment is here.

Sundar_Babu_&_Ors_vs_State_Of_Tamil_Nadu_on_19_February,_2009

Citations : [2009 SCC 14 244], [2010 SCC CRI 1 1349], [2009 ECRN SC 2 1288], [2009 AIOL 261], [2009 JT 13 666], [2009 SCALE 5 1], [2009 SCR 3 326]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1091787/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd328607dba63d7e6c4d8

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court CrPC 482 – FIR Quashed Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint IPC 498a - Not Made Out Landmark Case Mala Fide Untenable Maliciously Instituted Case Solely Intended to Harass Quash Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Amit Kumar Yadav And Others vs State Of Telangana on 11 September, 2015

Posted on May 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a Quash Judgment from Hon’ble AP high Court on grounds such as

  1. No Jurisdiction
  2. Delay in filing complaint
  3. Suppression of Material Facts
    1. Hiding Divorce deed
    2. Hiding settlement made by elders of community, after returning items given during marriage
Amit Kumar Yadav And Others vs State Of Telangana 11 September, 2015 crlp_2091_2015

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159121592/

Citation:

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Amit Kumar Yadav And Others vs State Of Telangana CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint No Territorial Jurisdiction Perjury - Approached Court with Unclean Hands Quash Suppression of Material Facts | Leave a comment

State Of A.P Vs M. Madhusudhan Rao on 24 October, 2008

Posted on April 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This Judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court talks about the importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report and where not done so, the delay in lodging the complaint should be satisfactorily explained.

From Para 18,

Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.

And… from Para 19,

No explanation worth the name for delay in filing the complaint with the police has come on record. We are of the opinion that this circumstance raises considerable doubt regarding the genuineness of the complaint and the veracity of the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) and her father (PW-3), rendering it unsafe to base the conviction of the respondent upon it. Resultantly, when the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant (PW-1) is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety.

State Of A.P vs M. Madhusudhan Rao on 24 October, 2008

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1273596/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd30f607dba63d7e6b53e

Citation: [(2008) 15 SCC 582], [(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1123], [2008 (14) SCALE 118]


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint State Of A.P Vs M. Madhusudhan Rao | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
delhipolice Delhi Police @delhipolice ·
26 Jul

⚠️ FACT CHECK: FAKE VIDEO ⚠️The viral video claiming Delhi Police DCP Sumit Jha resigned over student protests is completely fake and AI generated. The authentic footage, in which the officer addresses the public regarding active misinformation campaigns, is available vide link

Reply on Twitter 2081352316767396053 Retweet on Twitter 2081352316767396053 597 Like on Twitter 2081352316767396053 2294 X 2081352316767396053
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
itdp_official iTDP Official @itdp_official ·
31 Jul

Zero Airports..

Zero Vision..

Zero @ysjagan..

The numbers speak louder than the slogans.

#YSRCPNeverAgain #UttarandhraKalalakuRekkalu
#BhogapuramAirport

Reply on Twitter 2083105701380198733 Retweet on Twitter 2083105701380198733 102 Like on Twitter 2083105701380198733 379 X 2083105701380198733
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
renuka_jetti RENUKA.JETTI.LL.B. @renuka_jetti ·
1 Aug

ఏం చెప్పారు సార్ #YCP paytm కి చెప్పు తో కొట్టినట్టు 👏
#YcpCriminalPolitics
#EndOfYCP
#HOPEJETTI

Reply on Twitter 2083419566785646723 Retweet on Twitter 2083419566785646723 39 Like on Twitter 2083419566785646723 110 X 2083419566785646723
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
yashtdp_ Yash @yashtdp_ ·
1 Aug

మాజీ ముఖ్యమంత్రి శ్రీ జగన్ రెడ్డి గారూ,

తాజాగా వచ్చిన వార్త "అప్పలరాజు బెయిల్ పిటీషన్ కొట్టివేత!" చూశాక ఆయన వయసు తెలుసుకోకుండా మీకు స్క్రిప్ట్ వ్రాసి ఇచ్చిన వాడిని తిట్టుకుంటూ.. దయచేసి మీ మెట్టుతో మీరు కొట్టుకోకండి!

"45 ఏళ్లు.. ఇంచుమించు వయసయిపోయిందిలే, ఆయన ఎవరో దారినపోయే

Reply on Twitter 2083378805889278044 Retweet on Twitter 2083378805889278044 17 Like on Twitter 2083378805889278044 59 X 2083378805889278044
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 – Format with Legal Explanation (5,141 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (3,159 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,538 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (2,141 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (2,076 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (2,043 views)
  • Life Cycle of a Perjury Case (2,020 views)
  • Application for Certified Copy of FIR – Format, Procedure and Sample Draft (1,762 views)
  • Appeal, Revision and Review Explained (1,732 views)
  • Life Cycle Stages of a Restitution of Conjugal Rights Case (1,695 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 – Format with Legal Explanation
  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – 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

  • 103.89.15.35 | SD August 2, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 207 | First: 2019-03-02 | Last: 2026-08-02
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 496 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel