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 495 – Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted

Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (Bigamy under 494 and 495 IPC)

Posted on July 18, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

After lot many delays, I moved forward on the Bigamy complaint against the disgruntled knife at Ongole.

2022-07-18

Went to Ongole to attend the Spandana Programme to submit my complaint of Bigamy against the Knife. The Staff at the SP Office directed me to the Taluka PS which is adjacent to the SP Office. The Writer heard me and took me to the CI. Questions raised are as follows:

  1. Why complain now after a gap of many years?
  2. Why here and not in Hyderabad or Pune?
  3. Why not talk and settle matter?
  4. Why for a NC (non-cognizable case), came to Ongole all the way from Vijayawada?
  5. Without taking legal opinion, how can we register FIR immediately?
  6. Why evidences are attached?

2022-08-22

Came to Taluk PS to ask for FIR and give my 161 CrPC Statement, if FIR was done. Of course, as expected the responsible persons were on Bandobast duty and hence not available at Police Station. So with this, CrPC 154(1) is complied and completed. Next CrPC 154(3) and the follow it up with another visit to Ongole SP Office on a Spandana-Monday.


2022-09-05

Went to SP office straight and waited for my turn. First time experiencing a public grievance system. My issue was documented into a template and I was asked to appear before a DSP. I wanted for my turn and when it was time, I went in and sat before the DSP. After a lot of questions and answers (from me, obviously), the DSP directed (both orally on the phone) and on the template to register an FIR and investigate. Hurrraaayyyyyyyyy!

I got successfully registered my complaint at Spandana (weekly once public grievance program in all Govt offices of AP)

The interaction was interesting and I found another lead to pursue my other goal. Conduct free legal awareness sessions.

DSP: Being advocate, don’t you know that Police cannot directly register a 494 IPC case? (I did not hear the work ‘Cognizable’)
SP: It is made cognizable in AP sir.
DSP: (Surprised) Is it?
SP: Yes sir, here is the 2-page copy of the State amendment.
DSP: Immediately dials the Assistant Direction of Prosecutions to confirm. Call ends in 15 seconds with positive news.
SP: Not many are aware of this amendment sir. Even I came to know about this only from AP High Court judgments (like here and here).
DSP: This is news to me, it was not covered in the training imparted to the Police attendees.
SP: (Flash lights in my mind) Not just this sir, another issue in PWDV Act is also horribly implemented in AP and I filed petitions before the AP High Court.
DSP: Calls the CI of the Taluka PS, Ongole. No response. Calls the Writer in the Taluka PS. Comes to know the regular CI is on leave and only in-charge is in the Station. Call in-charge and orally directs that a case has to be registered for 494 IPC and the victim is an advocate and it will be difficult for you (in-charge/regular CIs) if he goes to High Court.
SP: Thanked the DSP profusely and offered to send the case laws to him over phone. Obtained his contact and immediately sent both the case laws. Later offered to take up any issue, with his support and guidance.

Overall, a good day, indeed!


2022-09-17

  • Received a call from a Head Constable asking me to appear before CI, Taluka PS, Ongole. After a quick conversation, informed him that I will appear on Saturday for the same.
  • Went to Taluka PS, Ongole at 11AM and waiting until 1.30PM. Then had lunch and went to meet DSP DTC, Shri G Rama Krishna garu. Had a worthwhile conversation and requested him to remind the CI, Taluka PS to register FIR and inform me to record my statement u/s 161 CrPC. If no FIR done, then I am to appear before SP, Prakasam District on a Monday (in the Spandana Program), Sep 26, 2022.

Hope this time around the FIR will be registered.


2022-09-26 (if necessary)

 


Index of all cases laid on me is here.

Posted in Sandeep Pamarati | Tagged IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife IPC 495 - Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

IPC 494 and 495 Judgments

Posted on April 13, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A short collection of Bigamy Judgments u/s 494 IPC/495 IPC.

  1. Priya Bala Ghosh Vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 Mar 1971 [SC: Acceptable proof necessary that the (alleged second) marriage of the accused was celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies as prescribed u/s 7 of HMA, such as Saptapadi and Homam]
  2. Santi Deb Berma Vs Kanchan Prava Devi on 10 Oct 1990 [SC: Acceptable proof necessary that the (alleged second) marriage of the accused was celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies as prescribed u/s 7 of HMA, such as Saptapadi and Homam]
  3. Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr on 14 Oct 1999 [SC: The standard of proof of marriage in such proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under section 494 of the I.P.C.]
  4. S Nagalingam Vs Sivagami on 31 August 2001 [SC: Unless a valid marriage is proved, a second marriage stands invalid and no offence under section 494 IPC attracts]
  5. K Neelaveni Vs State Rep By Inspector of Police and Ors on 22 Mar 2010 [SC: Clear ingredients of IPC 406 and 494; HC should NOT have quashed the FIR]
  6. A.Subash Babu Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 21 July, 2011 [SC: Due to State amendment, IPC 494 and IPC 495 are Cognizable and Non-bailable Offences in AP (and Telangana)]
  7. Kannan Vs Selvamuthukani on 30 Jan 2012 [SC: It has to be clearly established that the family members of Accused-husband knew that his divorce with his first wife was set aside before participating in the second marriage]
  8. Ushaben Vs Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada & Ors on 23 March, 2012 [SC: If a complaint contains allegations about commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC which is a cognizable offence, apart from allegations about the commission of a non-cognizable offence under Section 494 of the IPC, the court can take cognizance thereof even on a police report.]
  9. Saraswathi Vs Thirupathi and Anr on 24 Sep 2014 [MHC: Due to State amendment, as per Section 7A of HMA, tying thali, exchanging garlands are sufficient enough proof to attract IPC 494 and IPC 495 in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry]
  10. Asha Devi and Anr Vs State of UP and 2 Ors on 1 Dec 2020 [AHC: No protection for Bigamers]
  11. Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 01 Nov 2021 [PHHC: No protection for Bigamers]

 

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife IPC 495 - Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted | Leave a comment

Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 01 Nov 2021

Posted on April 4, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A short judgment from a single judge says as follows (Picking exact same works from here):

Prayer in this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents as the petitioners are in live-in-relationship against the wishes of the private respondents.
Perusal of file shows that petitioner No.1 Harpreet Kaur aged about 23 years is legally wedded wife of respondent No.4 Gurjant Singh, and without seeking divorce from her spouse she is living a lustful and adulterous life with petitioner No.2. Once petitioner No.1 is a married woman being wife of respondent No.4-Gurjant Singh, the act of petitioners particularly petitioner No.2 may constitute an offence under Sections 494/495 IPC. Such a relationship does not fall within the phrase “live-in-relationship” or “relationship” in the nature of marriage.
Petitioners have no legal right for protection on the facts of the present case inasmuch as the protection as being asked may amount to protection against commission of offence under Section 494/495 IPC. This petition has been filed just to obtain a seal of this Court on their so called live-in-relationship. On the face of it, the representation (Annexure P-3) appears to be a fake document as no receipt or diary number of the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala is given or attached.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.

Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 01 Nov 2021
Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors HM Act 11 - Void marriages HM Act 17 - Punishment of Bigamy HM Act 5 - Conditions for a Hindu Marriage IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife IPC 495 - Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law Non-Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Asha Devi and Anr Vs State of UP and 2 Ors on 1 Dec 2020

Posted on April 4, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench at Allahabad High Court held as follows:

From Para 16,

16. According to own case of the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 is still a legally wedded wife of one Mahesh Chandra. As per own alleged application dated 17.09.2020 (as reproduced in para 6 above), the petitioners are living as husband and wife and they have sought protection from interference in their living together as husband and wife. Once the petitioner No.1 is a married woman being wife of one Mahesh Chandra, the act of petitioners particularly the petitioner No.2, may constitute an offence under Sections 494/495 I.P.C. Such a relationship does not fall within the phrase “live-in-relationship” or “relationship in the nature of marriage”. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for protection from interference by others in their living as husband and wife. If the protection as prayed is granted, it may amount to grant protection against commission of offences under Sections 494/495 I.P.C.

From Para 18,

18. It is settled law that writ of mandamus can be issued if the petitioner has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition. Similar view has also been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh vs. State of U.P. 13. Applying the principles of issuance of writ of mandamus on the facts of the present case, we find that the petitioners have no legal right for protection on the facts of the present case inasmuch as such the protection as being asked, may amount to protection against commission of offence under Section 494/495 I.P.C. It is well settled law that writ of mandamus can not be issued contrary to law or to defeat a statutory provision including penal provision. The petitioners do not have legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right to ask for mandamus.

Asha Devi and Anr Vs State of UP and 2 Ors on 1 Dec 2020
Posted in High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Asha Devi and Anr Vs State of UP and 2 Ors HM Act 11 - Void marriages HM Act 17 - Punishment of Bigamy HM Act 5 - Conditions for a Hindu Marriage IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife IPC 495 - Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted Judiciary Antics Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law Non Application or Exercise of Judicial Mind Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

IPC 495 – Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted

Posted on February 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten 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 495 - Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted | Leave a comment

A.Subash Babu Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 21 Jul 2011

Posted on December 14, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Landmark Judgment to screw the perpetrators of 494 and 495 IPC Bigamy offences. This is specifically helpful to those who have cases in the State of Andhra Pradesh where these two crimes are made Cognizable and Non-bailable, due to a State amendment in 1992 whereas these are Non-cognizable and Bailable in the rest of the States in India.

13. In this regard, it would be, relevant to notice the provisions of Article 246 of the Constitution. Article 246 deals with subject matter of laws made  by the Parliament and by the legislatures of State. Clause (1) of Article 246 inter alia provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Clauses (2) and (3) of Article 246, the Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the maters enumerated in List 1 in the Seventh  Schedule. Sub-Clause 2 of the said Article provides that notwithstanding anything in Clause (3), Parliament and subject to Clause (1), the legislature of any State also have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List 3 in the Seventh Schedule, whereas, Clause (3) of Article 246 amongst other things provides that subject to Clauses (1) and (2), the legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List 2 in the Seventh Schedule. Entry 2 in List 3 i.e. Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule mentions “Criminal Procedure, including in matters included in the Code of “Criminal procedure, at the commencement of this Constitution”. Thus there is no manner of doubt that Parliament and subject to Clause (1), the legislature of any State also has power to make laws with respect to Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 2(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 defines the phrase “Cognizable Offence” to mean an offence for which and “Cognizable Case” means a case in which, a Police Officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force arrest without warrant. Part I of the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to offences under the Indian Penal Code inter alia mentions that Section 494 and 495 are non-cognizable. Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code relates to information in cognizable cases and provides inter alia that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an Officer in charge of a Police Station, shall be reduced to writing by him and be read over to the informant. Section 156 of the Code provides that any Officer in charge of a Police Station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over a local area within the limits of such station would have power to enquire into or try under provisions of Chapter XIII of Criminal Procedure Code. As Sections 494 and 495 are made non-cognizable, a Police Officer would not have power to investigate those cases without the order of a Magistrate, having a power to try such cases or commit such cases for trial as provided under Section 155(2) of the Code.
However, this Court finds that the Legislative Assembly of the State of Andhra Pradesh enacted the Code of Criminal Procedure (Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1992. By the said Amending Act, the First Schedule to Central Act 2 of 1974 i.e. the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came to be amended and against the entries relating to Section 494 in column 4 for the word “Ditto”, the word “Cognizable” and in column 5 for the word “Bailable” the word “Non-bailable” were substituted. Similarly, against the entries relating to Section 495 in column 4, for the word “Ditto” the word “Cognizable” and in column 5 for the word “Ditto”, the word “Non-bailable” were substituted. What is relevant to be noticed is that the Code of Criminal Procedure (Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1992 was reserved by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh on the 21st October, 1991 for consideration and assent of the President. The Presidential assent was received on 10th February, 1992 after which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1992 was published on the 15th February, 1992 in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part IV-B (Ext.). Thus there is no manner of doubt that Sections 494 and 495 IPC are cognizable offences so far as State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned.

And… in Para 14

*            *            *        *            *            *

In view of the above settled legal position, this Court has no doubt that the amendment made in the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1992, shall prevail in the State of Andhra Pradesh,  notwithstanding the fact that in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 offences under Section 494 and 495 are treated as cognizable offences. The reasoning given by the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Mavuri Rani Veera Bhadranna (supra) that though the State Legislation amended the Schedule making the offence under Section 494 IPC cognizable, the legislation made by the Parliament i.e. Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code remains and in the event of any repugnancy between the two legislations, the legislation made by the Parliament would prevail, because, Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code still holds the field despite the fact that the State Legislation made amendment to the Schedule of Criminal Procedure Code, with respect, is erroneous and contrary to all cannons of interpretation of statute. Once First Schedule to the Code of  Criminal Procedure, 1973 stands amended and offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 IPC are made cognizable offences, those offences will have to be regarded as cognizable offences for all purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 including for the purpose of Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 198(1)(c), after the Amendment made by the Code of Criminal Procedure(Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1992 cannot be interpreted in isolation without referring to the fact that offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC have been made cognizable so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned. Therefore, the provision made in Section 198(1)(c) that no Court shall take cognizance of an offences punishable under Chapter XX of the IPC except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved will have to be read subject to the amendment made by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Andhra Pradesh in 1992. Once, it is held that the offences under Section 494 and 495 IPC are cognizable offences, the bar imposed by operative part of sub-section 1 of Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code beginning with the words “No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence” gets lifted so far as offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 IPC are concerned. As those offences have been made cognizable offences in the State of Andhra Pradesh since 1992, the same will have to be dealt with as provided in the Section 156 which inter alia provides that any officer in charge of a Police Station, may without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to enquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. Even without the authorization under Section 155(2) or Section 156(3) of Criminal Penal Code, offences under Sections 494, 495 and 496 having been rendered cognizable and non-bailable by virtue of the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment Act, 1992) can be investigated by the Police and no illegality is attached to the investigation of these offences by the police. If the Police Officer in charge of a Police Station is entitled to investigate offences punishable under Section 494 and 495 IPC, there is no manner of doubt that the competent Court would have all jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences after receipt of report as contemplated under Section 173(2) of the Code. Thus, this Court finds that correct proposition of law was not laid down in Mavuri Rani Veera Bhadranna (supra) when the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the said case held that as Section 198 of Criminal Procedure Code still holds the field despite the amendment made by State Legislature, the Court would have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 494 IPC on the basis of report submitted by the Investigating Officer. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that in view of Section 198(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is disentitled to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 IPC despite the State amendment making those offences cognizable, this Court notices that in Mavuri Rani Veera Bhadranna (supra), the Division Bench has considered effect of Section 155(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter held that the bar under Section 198 would not be applicable as complaint lodged before police for offence under Section 494 IPC also related to other cognizable offences and if police files a charge sheet, the Court can take cognizance also of offence under Section 494 along with other cognizable offences by virtue of Section 155 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

And then in Para 15,

15. Section 155(4) of the Code inter alia provides that:-
“Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable”
Here in this case in the charge sheet it is mentioned that the appellant has also committed offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code which is cognizable and therefore this is a case which relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable and therefore the case must be deemed to be cognizable case notwithstanding that the other offences are non- cognizable. This is not a case in which the FIR is exclusively filed for commission of offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC. The case of the respondent no. 2 is that the appellant has committed offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 494, 495 and 498A of the IPC. A question may arise as to what should be the procedure to be followed by a complainant when a case involves not only non-cognizable offence but one or more cognizable offences as well. It is somewhat anomalous that the aggrieved person by the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 IPC should file complaint before a Court and that the same aggrieved person should approach the police officer for alleged commission of offences under Sections 417, 420 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Where the case involves one cognizable offence also along with non-cognizable offences it should not be treated as a non-cognizable case for the purpose of sub-section 2 of Section 155 and that is the intention of legislation which is manifested in Section 155(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the argument that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 IPC on the basis of submission of charge sheet, cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected.

A.Subash Babu Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 21 July, 2011

Citations: [2011 SCALE 7 671], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL SC 3 674], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 3 840], [2011 SCC 7 616], [2011 SLT 5 727], [2011 AIOL 509], [2011 ALLMR CRI SC 2931], [2011 ANJ SC 2 202], [2012 BOMCR CRI SC 1 379], [2011 JCC SC 3 2189], [2011 AIR SC 3031], [2011 SCC CRI 3 267], [2011 SCC CIV 3 851], [2011 AIR SC 4702], [2011 ULJ 3 139], [2011 AIC 107 51], [2011 SHIMLC 3 551], [2011 DMC SC 3 50], [2011 ALT CRI 3 242], [2012 BLJ 1 260], [2011 ACR SC 3 3182], [2011 DMC 2 827], [2011 KCCR SN 4 472], [2011 UC 2 1509], [2012 ALD CRI 1 210], [2011 SCR 9 453], [2011 JT SC 8 483], [2011 CRI LJ 4373], [2011 AIR SCW 4702]

Indiankanoon.org link:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1342950/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aeefe4b0149711415347


Here is the Andhra Pradesh HC judgement here from 2010.


AP High Court had passed similar judgment here in 2014.


For a similar adjudication from State of Odisha, go here.


 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision A.Subash Babu Vs State of A.P. and Anr Article 136 - Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court Article 141 - Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts Article 142 - Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery etc Article 246 - Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States Article 254 - Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States Code of Criminal Procedure (Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment) Act 1992 CrPC 155 - Information as to Non-Cognizable Cases and Investigation of Such Cases CrPC 156(3) - Any Magistrate Empowered u/s 190 May Order Such an Investigation as above-mentioned CrPC 173 - Report of Police Officer on Completion of Investigation CrPC 198(1) - Prosecution for Offences Against Marriage IPC 417 - Punishment for cheating IPC 420 - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife IPC 494 Compoundable Offence in Andhra Pradesh IPC 495 - Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted IPC 498A - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty IPC 498A Compoundable Offence in Andhra Pradesh Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Overruling Judgment Reportable Judgement or Order Sandeep Pamarati

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Bijumon and Ors Vs The New India Assurance Co on 28 Feb 2023 March 9, 2023
  • Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 04 Aug 2022 March 8, 2023
  • Ayush Mahendra Vs State of Telangana on 05 Jan 2021 March 8, 2023
  • Premchand Vs State of Maharashtra on 03 Mar 2023 March 8, 2023
  • Vibhor Garg Vs Neha March 5, 2023

Most Read Posts

  • Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022 (1,165 views)
  • Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (Disposal of DVC in 60 days) (1,154 views)
  • Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 23 Aug 2022 (1,070 views)
  • XYZ Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 05 Aug 2022 (1,006 views)
  • Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022 (815 views)
  • Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022 (806 views)
  • Ram Kumar Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 Sep 2022 (530 views)
  • Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022 (434 views)
  • Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 27 Sep 2021 (434 views)
  • Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (428 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (333)Reportable Judgement or Order (329)Landmark Case (318)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (268)Work-In-Progress Article (218)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (217)1-Judge Bench Decision (151)Sandeep Pamarati (88)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (82)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (75)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (53)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (53)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 (35)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 (639)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (299)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (160)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 (54)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) (41)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (40)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (31)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 Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010
  • G Reddeppa on Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010
  • 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

Archives of SoK

  • March 2023 (9)
  • 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 (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

  • SJC (San Jose) on 2023-04-04 April 4, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Apr 4, 09:00 - 13:00 UTCMar 27, 22:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in SJC (San Jose) datacenter on 2023-04-04 between 09:00 and 13:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
  • MAD (Madrid) on 2023-04-04 April 4, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Apr 4, 07:00 - 16:00 UTCMar 24, 14:20 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in MAD (Madrid) datacenter on 2023-04-04 between 07:00 and 16:00 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 […]
  • MAN (Manchester) on 2023-04-04 April 4, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Apr 4, 00:30 - 06:30 UTCMar 23, 12:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in MAN (Manchester) datacenter on 2023-04-04 between 00:30 and 06:30 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 […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 103.248.70.234 | SD March 26, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,292 | First: 2017-01-09 | Last: 2023-03-26
  • 220.192.228.88 | S March 26, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 19 | First: 2022-03-23 | Last: 2023-03-26
  • 110.89.41.109 | SDC March 26, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 47 | First: 2014-07-15 | Last: 2023-03-26
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 989 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel