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: DP Act 4 – Not Made Out

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 02 April 2019

Posted on January 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Karnataka High Court has quashed this 498A IPC case on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband since the complaint is fill of junk vague and non-specific allegations.

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 02 April 2019

The Supreme Court had crushed another false DV case by this liar and quashed it on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband here.


Citations: [

Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d4be4364a9326071f285522


The Index of these cases is here.

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 – IPC 498A Quashed Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives DP Act 3 - Not Made Out DP Act 4 - Not Made Out DP Act 6 - Not Made Out Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October 2018

Posted on December 12, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

In a rare act, Justice Satyanarayan Murthy has given a Quash order in a false 498A IPC case. He also invoked AP Dowry Prohibition Rule 1998 which are available here.

Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018

Citations:

Other Source Links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114175976/

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules 1998 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 – IPC 498A Quashed Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 DP Act 3 - Not Made Out DP Act 4 - Not Made Out IPC 498a - Not Made Out IPC 498A and 3 and 4 DP Act Combo Alleged Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr Misuse of IPC 498A Sandeep Pamarati

State of TS Vs Pathakota Venkata Mohan Rao on 6 March, 2019

Posted on June 26, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

This is an acquittal judgment of a friend who went through the rigors of the Criminal trial of a false 498A IPC case and came out acquitted with flying colors.

Was a Discharge u/s 239 Cr.P.C., within the horizon?

I make an legal argument below to say that, this is a fit criminal case for a Discharge and list the grounds as well. Probably would have saved many years of time for both the parties and the Court. Even then, there are good number of legal weapons available to ensure, we return the favor to the false-case complainant.

This is just for academic reasons only. Not to insult the judgment of the parties involved, in their decision-making to go to face full trial.

A legal (academic) Argument for a Discharge from a Criminal case

General Assessment of Judgment: From Para 15 onwards, almost all below observations of Magistrate from the evidence of witness are the sole contents coming from witness statements under 161 CrPC as well as the contents from Original complaint/FIR/ Charge Sheet, which are sufficient to raise in Discharge Petition as contradicting and not supporting the case of the Complainant. Frankly, this shows the incompetency of the IO to arrive at ac conclusion that this case is a fit case to file B-Closure report (or he may have sold out his integrity or was routinely in that business, not sure which one)

Inconsistency in saying the marriage year.

Inconsistency in the list of places the newly wed couple went to.

As noted in Ground #1, no details around the dates of all allegations

Continuing the marital relations with A1 to the point that, despite severe allegations of physical and mental harassment, the complainant conceives a baby.

About the fact that Complainant was at her parent’s home all the while, but she claims A1 harassed her physically. How is that thing, humanly possible?

PW2 testimony (clearly in sync with his 161 Statement) is loud and clear that he is a hearsay witness

Nowhere the Security guards talk about direct knowledge/eye witness to cruelty of A1 on Complainant.

Serious lapses in the investigation of IO is vivid and regrettable. Not examining the people who could support the prosecution narrative would be looked at as incompetency

Learned APP cited judgment of Bombay High Court in a proceeding pending in Tadepalligudem Magistrate Court. This signifies that there is absolute avenue to present other state High Court judgments in current state proceedings and we do NOT need Supreme Court precedents, all the time.

Ground #1: From Para 2, Dash and Dash was given as dowry. Nice. To whom? Later accused started harassing her physically and mentally (When?) and …. and abused her in filthy language (When?) and also suspected her character (When? Any Witnesses supporting this view in their 161 CrPC Statements) and …. and accused denied paternity of child (Why? When? Any Witnesses supporting this view in their 161 CrPC Statements)

Is all the BS above, not failing 212 CrPC?

Ground #2: From Para 21, even magistrate says, the allegation in the prosecution documents are “bald and omnibus allegations by PW1, prosecution failed to adduce any specific allegation that accused harassed PW1 physically and mentally”

Ground #3: From Para 22, No specific details of dates of physical assault or injuries on the self. Magistrate observe that as per explanation (a) of section 498-A IPC, the cruelly must be such extent which drive the woman to commit suicide.

From Para 23, same point mentioned above in Ground #1 is observed by Magistrate too. With whom is the damn Dowry deposited?

Ground #4: A casual perusal at the list of exhibits/evidences marked is sufficient to hold that there was not ONE evidence brought in by Prosecution, especially the IO. Tell-tale sign of baseless case, as put forward by IO.

Given that this author has NOT perused the complete 207 CrPC documents, the assessment done hereinabove, is evident enough to say that, this case too had quite a few irrefutable legal grounds to pursue the remedy of Discharge from this false litigation u/s 239 CrPC.

It is strongly believed by the author that, every second lost in futile trial of a case, is a undeniable tragedy of loss of time, that the Accused can never get back.

State of AP Vs Pathakota Venkata Mohan Rao on 6 March, 2019

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

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged DP Act 3 - Not Made Out DP Act 4 - Not Made Out IPC 498a - Not Made Out State of AP Vs Pathakota Venkata Mohan Rao

Sudha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 4 January 2016

Posted on September 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this revision filed by knife against the discharge of husband’s relatives, District Court of Delhi, held that not every cruelty attracts IPC 498A especially in the absence of a harassment/demand for same.

From Para 5,

Perusal of the file reveals that case was registered on the complaint given by the petitioner to the Joint Commissioner of Police. In this complaint it is no where mentioned that any of the respondents no. 2 to 6 had made any specific demand and the allegations are against her husband.

….

Perusal of the file further reveals that supplementary statements of petitioner were recorded on 29.03.2006 & 02.05.2004. In the complaint given to the Joint Commissioner of Police, there are no allegation of harassment and dowry demand against any of the respondents no. 2 to 6. There are allegation against respondent nos. 5 & 6 that they had thrown the gifts and they refused to accept them as the same were not as per their choice. There are allegation against the respondents no. 3 & 4 that they started fighting with the petitioner. They also stated to the petitioner that they are foreign returns and taunted the petitioner and further they demanded for change of gifts. I am of the view that these allegations cannot be construed as demand in view of Section 498A IPC. The Ld. MM has rightly came to conclusion that all the allegations are general in nature. The counsel for the petitioner is not able to make out any allegation of harassment or dowry demand against the respondents no. 2 to 6.

Para 6 further destroys the prosecution case,

It is admitted fact that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 20.06.2002 and complaint was filed on 11.11.2003. It is also admitted fact that the marriage between respondents no. 3 & 4 was solemnized in the year 1999 and marriage between respondents no. 5 & 6 were solemnized in the year 2000. It isalso admitted fact that respondents no. 3 to 6 are not residing in the matrimonial house of the petitioner and they are residing separately after the marriage of thepetitioner. It is true that no date, time and place has been given by the complainant when any demand was raised by the respondents no. 2 to 6.

From Para 8,

But, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under Section 498A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.

Sudha Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 January, 2016

The landmark judgment of High Court of Bombay is available here.

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court 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 239 - Discharged DP Act 4 - Dowry Demand Not Proved DP Act 4 - Not Made Out IPC 498A - Cruelty Not Proved IPC 498A - Cruelty Without Dowry Demand IPC 498a - Not Made Out Sudha Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) | Leave a comment

Dr.Varun Kumar Vs The State of TN on 26 June, 2018

Posted on September 16, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a case of malicious litigation per High Court of Madras in a complaint for offences under Sections 406, 417, 420, 506(i) IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as DP Act), Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 (herein after referred to as TNPHW Act) and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (herein after referred to as IT Act).

Hon’ble Court has mercilessly quashed the petition and threw it out the window, for good.

Dr.Varun Kumar Vs The State of TN on 26 June, 2018
Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged DP Act 4 - Not Made Out Dr.Varun Kumar Vs The State of TN IPC 417 - Punishment for cheating IPC 420 - Not Made Out IPC 506 - Not Made Out Section 66 of IT Act Sensational Or Peculiar Cases | Leave a comment

V.P. Dhanesh Vs State Of Jharkhand on 23 September, 2003

Posted on September 13, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment, Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand held that Dowry demand allegation after a considerable amount of time after marriage is not maintainable for the simple reason that they do not remain as bride and bridegroom as mentioned in the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Here is the case details from ecourts site.

V.P. Dhanesh Vs State Of Jharkhand on 23 September, 2003
Posted in High Court of Jharkhand Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 DP Act 4 - Not Made Out Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced V.P. Dhanesh Vs State Of Jharkhand | Leave a comment

Shobhnaben Vs Shekhar on 2 December, 2010

Posted on June 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Gujarat High Court has held that as no source of funds could be proved from which Dowry amount is given to accused, the accused are acquitted from Dowry allegations and there by IPC 498A is not made out.

 

Shobhnaben Vs Shekhar on 2 December, 2010
Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Acquitted in IPC 498A DP Act 3 - Not Made Out DP Act 4 - Not Made Out IPC 406 - Not Made Out No Clear Source of Funds Shobhnaben Vs Shekhar | Leave a comment

Sub-Inspector of Police Vs Kanagari Karthik on 30 June, 2017

Posted on June 6, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Starting a thread of posts, more like a series of Judgments, from particular district courts in Andhra Pradesh.

Calling this specific series as Guntur DV Cases. Opening the series with son of a gun of a case.

Intro

  • Nothing fancy or intriguing in the complaint (is that so??? Read on)
  • Routine allegation of combo of IPC 498A and 3,4 Dowry Prohibition Act case

 

Allegations in Charge sheet

  1. The offence had taken place in 4th lane, S.V.N Colony, Guntur, and that it was within the limits of Women Police Station, Guntur Urban and within the jurisdiction of this Court.
  2. The marriage was solemnized in Tirumala Kalyana Mandapam, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada.
  3. Moolah at Marriage at the time of marriage: The accused had taken
    1. cash an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs towards dowry and
    2. cash an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanam from PW2 and LW3-Angina Srinivas in the presence of PW3 and LW4-Thota Prabhavathi while
    3. PW2 and LW3-Angina Srinivas gifted 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to PW1.
  4. After the marriage, PW1 had joined A1 in Gayathri Nagar, Hyderabad and that the accused had looked after PW1 well for one month.
  5. Later the accused had started subjecting PW1 to physical and mental cruelty by stating that the dowry that was collected from PW2 and LW3-Angina Srinivas was not enough for them and they demanded that PW2 that she has to register her flat in  Vijayawada in favour of A1.
  6. A1 had suspected the fidelity of PW1 and number of times he had sent PW1 to the house of PW2 and demanded to register the flat in favour of A1
  7. PW1 has informed about the harassment of the accused to PW2, LWs. 3 and 4 (Angina Srinivas and Thota Prabhavathi respectively) and that PWs. 2, 3 and LWs. 3 and 4 (Angina Srinivas and Thota Prabhavathi respectively) had spoken with the accused, but they demanded that PW2 has to register her flat in Vijayawada in favour of A1.
  8. In the month of May 2015, that the accused had necked out PW1 from their house.
  9. On 30.12.2015, PW1 had given a report against the accused in Women Police Station, Guntur urban.

 

Interesting Titbits

  1. PW4 is the Investigating Officer. Read through the judgment below to know what happened to PW4
  2. Complaint from Knife states all the moolah mentioned in point 3 in above section was actually given to her.
  3. Allegations were levelled against A1 and A2 and that food was not provided to her and that she was confined in a room. But, in her deposition itself PW1 had stated that PW2 used to come to Vijayawada from Guntur to the flat at Vijayawada (Contradictory statements give the benefit of doubt to A1 to A3)
  4. Admissions in cross-examination:
    1. Her childhood and education up to the year 2009 was at Vijayawada and that
    2. MCNO.47/2016 against A1 was filed before the Hon’ble Family Court, at Vijayawada and
    3. the address in the said MC was mentioned by Pw1 as Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada and that the flat of her uncle was present there.
    4. All 3 evidences marked by prosecution also suggest the fact that the place of her residence was shown as Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada.
    5. neither relevant documents were produced nor other inhabitants of the flat at Vijayawada were examined to support the fact that the cause of action has arisen at Guntur; no documentary proof was filed by her to show that she was the resident of SVN Colony, Guntur.
    6. The dates of demanding PW1 by A1 to convey the flat of PW2 and the dates of sending her to the house of PW2 were not stated by PW2 to PW4 and that a report was given by PW1 at Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur, when A1 had left PW1 in the flat at Karmanghat when their residence was shifted to Karmanghat.
  5. Undisclosed facts/allegation with Investigating Officer by PW1.
    1. On the report given by her at Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur, that A1 was missing, that the A.S.I and the Inspector of Police of the concerned police station did counseling and advised her to lead happy marital life and that the same fact had not been stated to the Women Police Station, Guntur.
    2. PW1 had not stated the afore said facts to him and that she has not even stated to them that, she was not provided proper food, which made this Court to entertain a doubt with regard to the genuineness in foisting the case in Guntur while the MC NO.47/2016 is pending before the Hon’ble Family Court, Vijayawada.
    3. No wound certificate was obtained by her when injury was sustained by her due to oil burnt and in the deposition of PW4 during his cross-examination it was stated by him that PW1 had not stated before him that, A1 had bitten PW1 over her breast and that he had caused injury by pouring oil over her fingers.
    4. In the cross examination of PW4, it has been stated by PW4 that the date and time of dispatch of FIR (EX.P9) was left blank in column no.15 and that the case was not referred to counseling after the registration of FIR.
    5. It has also been admitted by PW4 that he had not collected any proof from PW2 to show that she resides in Guntur, and that the period of stay of PW1 in the house of PW2 at Guntur was not mentioned by him
    6. PW4 has also stated in his cross-examination that PW1 had only stated to him that A1 had beaten her over her body and that he had behaved rudely and that no wound certificate was produced and that no requisition was made to PW4 for taking PW1 to the hospital for treatment
    7. PW4 had further stated that all the witnesses PWs. 1 to 3 had stated before him that PW1 was necked out in May 2015 and that the specific dates of harassment were not stated by PW1 to him (PW4). It was stated by PW4 that in EX.P8, the address was shown to be at Vijayawada.

 

Read the further dissection of the case by Hon’ble Justice Miss V Sri Rama.

Sub-Inspector of Police Vs Kanagari Karthik on 30 June, 2017
Posted in Guntur DV Cases | Tagged DP Act 4 - Not Made Out IPC 498a - Not Made Out IPC 498A and 3 and 4 DP Act Combo Alleged Sub-Inspector of Police Vs Kanagari Karthik | 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

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Ors Vs Gobardhan Sao and Ors on 27 Feb 2002 February 4, 2023
  • Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt Vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel on 02 May 2022 February 4, 2023
  • Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Ors Vs Subrata Borah Chowlek and Anr on 12 Nov 2010 February 4, 2023
  • 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

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? (9,731 views)
  • Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022 (925 views)
  • State Bank of India and Anr Vs Ajay Kumar Sood on 16 Aug 2022 (887 views)
  • Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 23 Aug 2022 (878 views)
  • Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors (740 views)
  • P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (724 views)
  • Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (Disposal of DVC in 60 days) (720 views)
  • Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022 (630 views)
  • Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022 (584 views)
  • Bar Council of India Vs Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar and Ors on 02 Aug 2022 (536 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (325)Reportable Judgement or Order (321)Landmark Case (312)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (261)Work-In-Progress Article (218)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (212)1-Judge Bench Decision (146)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 (631)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 (26)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

  • February 2023 (3)
  • 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

  • ICN (Seoul) on 2023-02-20 February 20, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 20, 17:00 - 23:00 UTCFeb 7, 08:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ICN (Seoul) datacenter on 2023-02-20 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 […]
  • ICN (Seoul) on 2023-02-16 February 16, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 16, 17:00 - 23:00 UTCFeb 7, 08:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ICN (Seoul) datacenter on 2023-02-16 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 […]
  • ORD (Chicago) on 2023-02-16 February 16, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 16, 09:30 - 12:00 UTCFeb 7, 18:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ORD (Chicago) datacenter on 2023-02-16 between 09:30 and 12:00 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

  • 185.222.58.78 | SD February 7, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 256 | First: 2022-02-18 | Last: 2023-02-07
  • 95.163.25.9 | SD February 7, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 243 | First: 2023-01-19 | Last: 2023-02-07
  • 175.175.216.222 | SD February 7, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 13 | First: 2022-01-18 | Last: 2023-02-07
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 667 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel