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: IPC 211 – False charge of offence made with intent to injure

Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024

Posted on September 4, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) held that the husband may initiate perjury proceedings against the knife, if he desires so.

From Para 7,

A perusal at the complaint would indicate that the complainant laid emphasis upon infections of the husband on his genital areas which resembled as STD. Therefore, the husband is guilty of mental harassment dishonestly concealing his mental condition and breaching the trust of the wife. Minute details of certain allegations are made which are found in the complaint. The crux of the complaint was STD on him, making her leave her job after marriage and therefore, she would be dependent upon him. There is not a single sentence about the petitioner demanding dowry and indulging in cruelty for the purpose of demand of dowry. All the harassments that the complainant narrates are minor skirmishes between the husband and the wife.

A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would also not indicate any demand of dowry or cruelty on the part of the husband. Prior to filing of the charge sheet by the Police, statements were recorded of the family members of the complainant.

The mother herself in her statement speaks that at the time of discussions about the marriage, the parents of the petitioner and the petitioner had clearly indicated that they do not want any dowry and they are not demanding anything. The same goes with the statements of others.

What is given to the complainant, according to the complainant’s tradition, is 614 grams of silver and 160 grams of gold, not as demand but as a tradition of her family which at best be said to be ‘Stridhana’. Such statements galore. If the statements recorded of the mother and the brother of the complainant, the complaint, the charge sheet and summary of the charge sheet are red in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is that, no demand for dowry was made and no cruelty that would become ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC would get attracted in the case at hand.

Section 498A has two circumstances, which can draw an accused into its web. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty which is likely to drive the woman to suicide or the harassment should be such that they would coerce the woman for meeting any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, and on failure to fulfill the demand, indulge in cruelty. If the contents of the complaint, summary of the charge and the statements are considered on the bedrock of necessary ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC, the allegation of the offence would tumble down like a pack of cards, as, no where it is indicative, of the fact that there is dowry harassment and cruelty by the husband or the members of the family of the petitioner.

From Para 8,

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that every time the petitioner was accused of suffering from STD. In the aforesaid affidavit, it is clearly indicated by the wife that the petitioner is suffering from HPV infection as he has some rashes on his buttock. The petitioner gets himself tested at the Victoria Hospital and several hospitals.

The diagnostic centre at Columbus, USA observes that history and physical examination of the petitioner was done. He has no physical signs and no history of concern for HPV or any other infection in the body. Therefore, the bogey that is projected by the complainant/wife that the husband has some physical problem appears to be a white lie.

From Para 9,

9. The other bogey projected by the wife is that the petitioner has closed all channels of communications and had never shown any interest in getting the complainant to the USA, this is completely belied by the documents appended to the petition itself, as not one but four appointments were taken by the petitioner for VISA purposes of the wife. The first appointment after the petitioner left to the USA was on 13-10-2020. There are four appointments, confirmation acknowledgments of which are produced by the petitioner as annexures to the petition. They are dated 13-10-2020, 02-03-2021, 07-05-2021 and 24-05-2021;

It is on the 5th appointment, the complainant goes before the visa office and Visa is granted to the complainant, which is also appended as document to the petition. These are documents which speak for themselves. A mail communication on 05-12-2021 is quoted hereinabove. The complainant seeks confirmation regarding her travel to USA. Therefore, it is clearly a bogey projected by the complainant that the petitioner was not interested in getting her to the USA and had blocked all channels; but the documents speak otherwise. The attitude of the complainant also speaks for itself.
Therefore, it is not a case where there is an iota of ingredient against the petitioner/husband for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. It is misuse and abuse of criminal justice system by the complainant right from the word go.

Para 10,

10. This Court has completely considered the complaint, summary of the charge sheet, the statements recorded and the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. All this exercise is undertaken only to arrive at a conclusion as to any of the ingredients of the offences are met or otherwise. The unmistakable conclusion is that, the complainant in gross misuse and abuse of law has set the criminal law into motion. Such frivolous cases registered by the wife have taken enormous judicial time, be it before the concerned Court or before this Court, and has led to enormous civil unrest, destruction of harmony and happiness in the society. It may not be that these would be the facts in every given case. The Court is only concerned about frivolous and vexatious litigations clogging the criminal justice delivery system, where genuine cases lie in cold storage. If the facts narrated hereinabove are noticed and as observed, the complainant has, in gross misuse and abuse of the process of the law, has set the criminal law into motion. Therefore, it becomes a fit case where the husband must be given liberty to initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution or initiate proceedings under Section 211 of the IPC. Liberty is thus reserved to the husband, for such action to be initiated in accordance with law, if he so desires.

Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024

List of Quash judgments is here and List of Perjury judgments is here.

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed IPC 211 - False charge of offence made with intent to injure Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao | Leave a comment

S.Mukanchand Bothra Vs Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Educational Charitable Trust Chennai and Ors on 22 December, 2015

Posted on February 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Distinguishing the law laid down by Apex Court in Perumal Vs Janaki, Single Judge bench of Madras High Court held that, Investigating officers can not be made liable for perjury (filing false affidavits) in cases where accused was acquitted after trial.

S.Mukanchand Bothra Vs Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Educational Charitable Trust Chennai and Ors on 22 Dec 2015

Citations : [2015 SCC ONLINE MAD 11421]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139009470/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5728e0c8e561092708a3b8c4

https://www.legitquest.com/case/s-mukanchand-bothra-v-rajiv-gandhi-memorial-educational-charitable-trust-chennai-others/973BF


Index of Perjury judgments here.

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 IPC 211 - False charge of offence made with intent to injure IPC 218 - Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture Perjury Under 340 CrPC S.Mukanchand Bothra Vs Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Educational Charitable Trust Chennai and Ors | Leave a comment

Santokh Singh Vs Izhar Hussain and Anr on 25 Apr 1973

Posted on February 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A 2-judge bench of Apex Court held that, in this particular case, the Police officer can not be saddled with IPC 211 and prosecuted u/s 340 CrPC read with 195 CrPC. But the necessary ingredients are clearly articulated and hence this case law has to be relied upon as landmark judgment to file perjury against the person who made the false complaint (FIR need not be registered).

From Para 8,

8. In this Court, Shri Gupta has very forcefully contended that on the material on the record this direction is wholly unjustified, if not positively illegal, being based on misreading of evidence and on erroneous view of law. According to the submission, the appellant had neither lodged the FIR nor otherwise instituted any criminal proceeding or falsely charged Izhar Hussain within the contemplation of Section 211 IPC. Besides, there is absolutely no material on the record on which the High Court could have formed an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that a complaint under Section 211 IPC should be filed against the appellant.

From Para 10,

… The short question posed, therefore, is, if by giving false evidence as a witness against Izhar Hussain the appellant can be said to have charged him within the contemplation of Section 211 IPC. If this question is answered in the affirmative, then it will have to be determined whether there is in fact a false accusation and finally whether it is expedient in the interest of justice on the facts and circumstances of the present case to direct a complaint to be filed under Section 211 IPC. This section as its marginal note indicates renders punishable false charge of offence with intent to injure. The essential ingredient of an offence under Section 211 IPC is to institute or cause to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a person with intent to cause him injury or with similar intent to falsely charge any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge. Instituting or causing to institute false criminal proceedings assume false charge but false charge may be preferred even when no criminal proceedings result. It is frankly conceded by Shri Kohli that the appellant cannot be said to have instituted any criminal proceeding against any person. So that part of Section 211 IPC is eliminated. Now, the expression “falsely charges” in this section, in our opinion, cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial. To “falsely charge” must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion the machinery of criminal investigation and not when speaking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial. The words “falsely charges” have to be read along with the expression “institution of criminal proceeding”. Both these expressions, being susceptible of analogous meaning should be understood to have been used in their cognate sense. They get as it were their colour and content from each other. They seem to have been used in a technical sense as commonly understood in our criminal law. The false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings. In other words, it must be embodied either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or an officer having authority over the person against whom the allegations are made. The statement in order to constitute the “charge” should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion. Statement on oath falsely supporting the prosecution case against an accused person more appropriately amounts to an offence under Sections 193 and 195 IPC and not under Section 211 IPC. We do not think that the offences contemplated by Sections 193/195 IPC on the one hand and Section 211 IPC on the other were intended by the legislature in this context, to overlap so as to make it optional whether to proceed under one or the other. ..…

From Para 11,

Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The Court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. Too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely that the court should direct prosecution.

Original:

Santokh Singh Vs Izhar Hussain and Anr on 25 Apr 1973 (SCI)

Casemine Version.

Santokh Singh Vs Izhar Hussain and Anr on 25 Apr 1973

Citations : [1973 AIR SC 2190], [1974 BLJR 22 877], [1973 SCC 2 406], [1974 SCR 1 78], [1973 CAR 316], [1973 CRLR SC 473], [1973 SCC CR 828], [1973 SCC CRI 828], [1973 CRLJ SC 1176]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56524/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab94e4b014971140cd11


Index of Perjury judgments 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 CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 IPC 211 - False charge of offence made with intent to injure Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Perjury Under 340 CrPC Reportable Judgement or Order Santokh Singh Vs Izhar Hussain and Anr | Leave a comment

A.Radhika Vs Wilson Sundararaj on 26 Feb 2021

Posted on February 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Citing landmark judgments, Madras High Court held that Investigating Officer cannot made liable u/s 211 IPC and based on another decision by Madras High Court here said such officers may be proceeded u/s 218 IPC which does not come under the procedure of 340 CrPC r/w 195 CrPC.

From Para 21,

21. The above judgements set out the procedure while dealing with an application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. Firstly, in order to initiate proceedings under Section 340,Cr.P.C., an application has to be made to the Court upon which the Court can initiate an inquiry into any offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. Secondly, offences as set out in the complaint have to be made out. In the present case, the complainant alleges that an offence under Section 211, I.P.C. has been made out.

From Para 22,

22. In the present case, based on the complaint given by one Mr. Rajamani, the FIR was registered by the F-2 Police Station, Egmore and the arrest was also carried out by the said police. The Petitioner came into the scene only at a later point of time when the case was transferred to the file of the CBCID. The language used under Section 211, I.P.C. regarding false charge can only relate to the original or initial accusation through which the criminal law was set in motion. Admittedly, it was not the Petitioner who had set the criminal law in motion. That apart, as held in Iqbal Singh Marwah’s Case (cited supra) the offences referred to under Section 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. will get attracted only with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.

And finally from paras 24 and 25,

24. This Court after considering the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perumal v. Janaki (cited supra) has come up with this fine distinction in the case of S.Mukanchand Bothra (cited supra). That apart, the facts of the present case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perumal v. Janaki.
25. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the offence under Section 211, I.P.C. has not been made out against the Petitioner. The Respondent cannot pick and choose certain observations made by the trial court and this Court, and make it a basis for filing an application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. to punish the Petitioner under Section 211, I.P.C.

Silver lining from para 26,

26. A careful reading of the petition filed by the Respondent at the best makes out a case for malicious prosecution. In a case of malicious prosecution, which gives rise to a tortious liability, only a suit for damages can be filed by establishing the ingredients to maintain such a suit. The grounds for maintaining a suit for malicious prosecution cannot form the basis for filing a petition under Section 340, Cr.P.C. since it has to independently satisfy the requirements of Section 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C.

A.Radhika Vs Wilson Sundararaj on 26 Feb 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

 

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged A.Radhika Vs Wilson Sundararaj CrPC 340 - Quashed IPC 211 - False charge of offence made with intent to injure Perjury Under 340 CrPC S.Mukanchand Bothra Vs Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Educational Charitable Trust Chennai and Ors | Leave a comment

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M Srinivasa Rao on 28 August 2020

Posted on August 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

See Supreme Court deprecated the unethical practice of State Government of Andhra Pradesh in this Order… Hehehe

State of Andhra Pradesh does it again! The incorrigible inefficiency in filing appeal is apparent from page 78 where the present special leave petition has been filed after a delay of 455 days. In view of Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 there are no more acceptable excuses. These are matters brought before the Court only to obtain a certificate of dismissal to put a quietus to the matter. We strongly deprecate the same.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M Srinivasa Rao on 28 August 2020

The earlier judgment from erstwhile High Court of AP.

M.Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of A.P. on 28 August 2018

A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 340 - Dismissed/Rejected IPC 211 - False charge of offence made with intent to injure Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

Perumal Vs Janaki on 20 January, 2014

Posted on April 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Another landmark judgment from Justice Jasti Chalameswar on the Supervisory Authority of High Courts on Lower Courts in a state and how and why it should have been invoked in this case gainfully. If not under 193 IPC, invocation of 211 IPC was very much desirable in this case.

Another observation is that one can file Perjury under section 340 CrPC even after getting acquittal.

Perumal Vs Janaki on 20 January, 2014

Citations : [2015 NCC 1 678], [2014 SCC 5 377], [2014 SCC CRI 2 591], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 46], [2014 CTC 1 664], [2014 AIC 135 224], [2014 AIOL 32], [2014 AIR SC 993], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 2 70], [2014 CRLJ SC 1454], [2014 JT 2 180], [2014 SCALE 1 406], [2014 SLT 1 680], [2014 KLJ 1 688], [2014 AICLR 1 828], [2014 MLJ CRI 1 505], [2014 RAJ 1 30], [2014 SCJ 3 152], [2014 LW CRL 1 793], [2014 KCCR SN 3 166], [2014 AIR SCW 993], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 851], [2014 CUT LT 118 22]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25369927/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af43e4b0149711415fb6

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 340 - Perjury even after getting acquittal CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 IPC 193 - Punishment for false evidence IPC 211 - False charge of offence made with intent to injure Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Perjury Under 340 CrPC Perumal Vs Janaki Reportable Judgement or Order Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

IPC 211 – False charge of offence made with intent to injure

Posted on July 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

—Whoev­er, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged IPC 211 - False charge of offence made with intent to injure | Leave a comment

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
bjp4india BJP @bjp4india ·
15 May

कुछ ऐसा था #OperationSindoor 😎😂

Reply on Twitter 1923002656483606564 Retweet on Twitter 1923002656483606564 8736 Like on Twitter 1923002656483606564 57916 X 1923002656483606564
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
indian_analyzer The Analyzer (News Updates🗞️) @indian_analyzer ·
15h

HUGE: 30+ acres of Okhla LANDFILL reclaimed. Height reduced from 60m to 20m in just 3 months👏🏼
~ By Oct 2025, 20L MT legacy garbage to be cleared. By 2028, All Garbage mountains in Delhi GONE.

Delhi Govt & @MSSirsa is delivering what others only promised👌🏼

Reply on Twitter 1923258365259485199 Retweet on Twitter 1923258365259485199 3189 Like on Twitter 1923258365259485199 12892 X 1923258365259485199
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
shrivastavani ExtraSpiceAni @shrivastavani ·
15 May

Maharaj ji ka control button toot gaya hai 😭💀

Reply on Twitter 1923049975312679143 Retweet on Twitter 1923049975312679143 797 Like on Twitter 1923049975312679143 4892 X 1923049975312679143
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
sputnikint Sputnik @sputnikint ·
14 May

🇷🇺🇲🇾PUTIN'S ROYAL RIDDLE: HOW DID MALAYSIA'S PM CRACK THE CODE?

Reply on Twitter 1922677118195949951 Retweet on Twitter 1922677118195949951 1381 Like on Twitter 1922677118195949951 5027 X 1922677118195949951
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 15 May 2024 May 13, 2025
  • Gurram Sitaramaiah Vs Gurram Siva Parvathi and Ors on 08 Jan 2024 May 3, 2025
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 May 1, 2025
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 April 18, 2025
  • Sanjay Kumar Shaw Vs Anjali Kumari Shaw on 07 Apr 2025 April 18, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (2,074 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (1,342 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (1,304 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,233 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (887 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (793 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (754 views)
  • Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs State of AP on 13 Nov 2024 (718 views)
  • State of AP Vs Basa Nalini Manohar and Ors on 23 Dec 2024 (665 views)
  • Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024 (623 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (398)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (369)Landmark Case (366)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (365)1-Judge Bench Decision (288)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (270)Work-In-Progress Article (217)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (96)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (77)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (68)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (59)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (58)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)CrPC 482 - Quash (39)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (37)Advocate Antics (36)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (711)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (318)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (177)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (141)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (105)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (65)General Study Material (55)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (50)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (50)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (49)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (43)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (42)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (35)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (27)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (23)

Recent Comments

  • Risha Bhatnagar on Pitchika Lakshmi Vs Pichika Chenna Mallikaharjuana Rao on 24 Dec 2012
  • ShadesOfKnife on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • kanwal Kishore Girdhar on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • SUBHASH KUMAR BANSAL on Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • 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

  • ULN (Ulaanbaatar) on 2025-06-04 June 4, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 4, 18:00 - 22:00 UTCMay 13, 01:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ULN (Ulaanbaatar) datacenter on 2025-06-04 between 18:00 and 22:00 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 end-users […]
  • ULN (Ulaanbaatar) on 2025-06-04 June 4, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 4, 18:00 - 22:00 UTCMay 13, 00:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ULN (Ulaanbaatar) datacenter on 2025-06-04 between 18:00 and 22:00 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 end-users […]
  • KHH (Kaohsiung City) on 2025-06-04 June 4, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 4, 18:00 - 22:00 UTCMay 12, 23:36 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in KHH (Kaohsiung City) datacenter on 2025-06-04 between 18:00 and 22:00 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

  • 103.243.242.105 | SD May 16, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 4,427 | First: 2021-07-30 | Last: 2025-05-16
  • 103.232.202.69 | SD May 16, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 28,051 | First: 2017-12-07 | Last: 2025-05-16
  • 201.231.83.229 | SD May 16, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2,808 | First: 2008-12-21 | Last: 2025-05-16
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 5362 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel