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 500 – Punishment For Defamation

Rabindra Nath Pal Vs Ratikanta Paul and Ors on 6 Mar 2020

Posted on March 10, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on Apex Court’s Surinder Mohan Vikal decision, Calcutta High Court held as follows:

In the instant case, the cause of action arose from the date when First Information Report was registered and not from the date on which the complainant was acquitted from the charge.

Rabindra Nath Pal Vs Ratikanta Paul and Ors on 6 Mar 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50050401/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5faa5a1c4653d02a0b1309ab

Posted in High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Non-Reportable Judgement or Order Rabindra Nath Pal Vs Ratikanta Paul and Ors Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra | Leave a comment

Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 4 Jul 2011

Posted on March 10, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on Apex Court’s Surinder Mohan Vikal decision, Delhi High Court held that if any offence is made out in a complaint under Section 500 IPC for defamation, Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. is attracted and cognizance of offence should be taken within a period of three years from the date of occurrence.

Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 4 Jul 2011

Citations : [2011 DLT 182 221], [2012 CRICC 1 85], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL 4 735], [2011 SCC ONLINE DEL 2664], [2011 RCR CRI 4 735]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10503637/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090e0ae4b014971117b1c7

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) Reportable Judgement or Order Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra | Leave a comment

Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra on 28 Feb 1978

Posted on October 16, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court held that, the defamation has to be filed with in time limitation while also referring to 468, 469 and 470 CrPC.

It would thus appear that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of sub-section (1) of section 468 which prohibits every Court from taking cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2) after the expiry of the period of limitation. It is hardly necessary to say that statutes of limitation have legislative policy behind them. For instance, they shut out belated and dormant claims in order to save the accused from unnecessary harassment. They also save the accused from the risk of having to face trial at a time when his evidence might have been lost because of the delay on the part of the prosecutor. As has been stated, a bar to the taking of cognizance has been prescribed under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no reason why the appellant should not be entitled to it in the facts and circumstances of this case.

Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra on 28 Feb 1978

Citations : [1978 SCC 2 403], [1978 SCR 3 434], [1978 CAR 113], [1978 CRLR SC 158], [1978 SCC CR 215], [1978 AIR SC 486], [1978 AIR SC 786], [1978 AIR SC 986], [1978 SCC CRI 215], [1978 CRLJ SC 764]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/885750/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abcae4b014971140d573

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation CrPC 469 - Commencement of the period of limitation CrPC 470 - Exclusion of time in certain cases IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Landmark Case Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra | Leave a comment

Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram on 22 Apr 1971

Posted on October 16, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court passed this Judgment regd

After a consideration of the various decisions referred to above, we are of the opinion that the propositions laid down in English decisions dealing with libel that the actual words alleged to be used must be stated in the indictment cannot be applied on all fours when dealing with the cases of defamation by spoken words under Section 499 I. P. C. it will be highly desirable no doubt if the actual words stated to have been used by an accused and which are alleged to be defamatory are reproduced by the complainant. The actual words used or the statements made may be reproduced verbatim by the complainant if the words are few and the statement is very brief. But in cases where the words spoken are too many or the statements made are too long, in our opinion, it will be the height of technicality to insist that the actual words and the entire statements should be reproduced verbatim. The object of having, if possible, the actual words or the statements before the court is to enable it to consider whether those words or the statements are defamatory in nature. That purpose or object will be served if the complainant is able to reproduce in his complaint or evidence in a substantial measure the words of imputation alleged to have been uttered. If the statements or the words placed before the court by the complainant are held to be not defamatory, it will mean that the complainant will have to lose. Therefore it is to his interest to get a proper adjudication from, the court that as far as possible the words spoken or the statements actually made and which he alleges to be defamatory are before the court. But a complaint cannot be thrown out on the mere ground that the actual words spoken or the statements made have not been stated in the complaint. From the point of view of accused also it is necessary that the matters alleged to be defamatory in the complaint must be so stated as to enable them to know the nature of the allegations that they have to meet.

Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram on 22 Apr 1971

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1946272/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab73e4b014971140c842

Citations:

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Landmark Case Reportable Judgement or Order Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Nagaraj Rao Vs Sushma Rani on 01 Oct 2020

Posted on October 7, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Course of events in this case at High Court of Karnataka.

  1. Husband files Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR) and Wife makes defamatory statements in her Written Statement (WS)/Counter which she repeats in Examination. Trial Court allows RCR. Trail Court also allows Guardians and Wards Act (GWA) and allows visitation of Husband for the minor girl child. Wife shares the contents of the Counter with third parties.
  2. Husband files Defamation against Wife for sharing defamatory statements made in Counter. Trail Court allows it. 1 Month and 5000/- fine.
  3. Wife files Revision and Sessions Court dismisses it.
  4. Wife files Revision at HC to set aside the punishment given by Trial Court. HC part allows it and sets aside the punishment but enhances the fine to 15000/- to be paid within 60 days, and in default, punishment for 1 months!!!
    • Husband also files Revision at HC to enhance Punishment. Dismissed
Nagaraj Rao Vs Sushma Rani on 01 Oct 2020
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Nagaraj Rao Vs Sushma Rani | Leave a comment

M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr on 13 November 1968

Posted on January 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark classic case, Supreme Court has held that,

16. In a recent judgment of the House of Lords Rumping v. Director of Public Prosecutions 1962 3 All ER 256 Rumping the in mate of a Dutch ship was tried for murder committed on board the ship. Part of the evidence for the prosecution admitted at the trial consisted of a letter that RumpingĀ  had written to his wife in Holland which amounted to a confession. Rumping had written the letter on the day of the killing, and had handed the letter in a closed envelope to a member of the crew requesting him to post it as soon as the ship arrived at the port outside England. After the appellant was arrested, the member of the crew handed the envelope to the captain of the ship who handed it over to the police. The member of the crew, the captain and the translator of the letter gave evidence at the trial, but the wife was not called as witness. It was held that the letter was admissible in evidence. Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-Y-Gest, Lord Hodson and Lord Pearce were of the view that at common law there had never been a separate principle or rule that communications between a husband and wife during marriage were inadmissible in evidence on the ground of public policy. Accordingly except where the spouse to whom the communication is made is a witness and claims privilege from disclosure under the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 (of which the terms are similar to Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act though not identical), evidence as to communications between husband and wife during marriage is admissible in criminal proceedings.
17. The question whether the complainant in this case is an agent of the wife because he has received the letters from the wife and may be permitted to give evidence is a matter on which no opinion at this stage can be expressed. The complainant claims that he has been defamed by the writing of the letters. The letters are in his possession and are available for being tendered in evidence. We see no reason why inquiry into that complaint should, on the preliminary contentions raised, be prohibited. If the complainant seeks to support his case only upon the evidence of the wife of the accused, he may be met with the bar of Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act. Whether he will be able to prove the letters in any other manner is a matter which must be left to be determined at the trial and cannot be made the subject-matter of an enquiry at this stage.

 

Supreme Court of India version:

M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr on 13 November 1968

Case Mine version:

M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr on 13 November 1968 Casemine

Citations: [1969 SCR 2 692], [1970 AIR SC 1876], [968 KERLT 904], [1950 AIR TC 38], [1969 SCC 1 37], [1970 CAR 210], [1970 CRLJ 0 1651], [1970 CRI LJ 1651]

Indiankanoon.org or ILR link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1159106/ or http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/21403


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.


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

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr

Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926

Posted on January 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark judgment by old Madras High Court, it was held that the accusations made in a complaint to Magistrate do NOT have absolute privilege and only have qualified privilege as provided under section 499 of IPC. Such accusations are liable for defamation if NOT protected by exception 8.

Indian Law Review version (Original):

Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926 ILR

Indiankanoon Version:

Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926

Citations: [49 Mad. 728], [A. I. R. (18) 1926 Mad. 906], [1926 (27) Cri LJ 1026], [AIR 1926 Mad 906], [(1926) 51 MLJ 112],

Indiankanoon.org or ILR link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1159106/ or http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/21403


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, 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 High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes No Absolute Privilege Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal

M.K.Prabhakaran and Anr Vs T.E.Gangadharan and Anr on 7 March, 2006

Posted on January 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Kerala High Court hass held that,

Once a statement has been filed in a court of law, that statement can be taken as published and if such a statement amounts to per se defamatory, it is the duty of the accused to establish that they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C.

M.K.Prabhakaran and Anr Vs T.E.Gangadharan and Anr on 7 March, 2006

Citations: [2011 KCCR 1 230], [2008 SCC ONLINE KAR 758], [2006 (2) KLT 122]

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1547517/


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, 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 High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation M.K.Prabhakaran and Anr Vs T.E.Gangadharan and Anr Statement Filed in Court is Published

Dayanand Rao Rangadal Vs Suresh and Ors on 14 August, 2008

Posted on January 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on landmark judgments here, here and here, Karnataka High Court held that,

  1. a written statement is a public document
  2. a criminal proceeding can be initiated when a civil proceeding is ongoing
Dayanand Rao Rangadal Vs Suresh and Ors on 14 August, 2008

Citations: [2011 KCCR 1 230], [2008 SCC ONLINE KAR 758]

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56093e42e4b0149711231bf9


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, 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 High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 199 - Defamation Dayanand Rao Rangadal Vs Suresh and Ors IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation

Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal on 1 November 1965

Posted on January 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Madras High Court held that,

It is clear from what I have stated that the decision is hardly applicable to the facts of the present case. The decision refers to a publication in a paper and it should be proved that the accused was responsible for the publication. But in this case, the defamatory matter contained in the plaint wasĀ  admittedly signed and filed by the petitioner. There can be no doubt that there was publication of the defamatory matter.

Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal on 1 November, 1965

Citations: [AIR 1966 Mad 363], [1966 CriLJ 1149], [1966 MLJ 1 547], [1965 SCC ONLINE MAD 248], [1966 MAD LJ 1 547],

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735036/


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, 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 High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • 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

  • Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors (1,192 views)
  • Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022 (1,139 views)
  • Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (Disposal of DVC in 60 days) (1,118 views)
  • Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 23 Aug 2022 (1,054 views)
  • XYZ Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 05 Aug 2022 (918 views)
  • Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022 (803 views)
  • Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022 (788 views)
  • Bar Council of India Vs Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar and Ors on 02 Aug 2022 (666 views)
  • Ram Kumar Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 Sep 2022 (516 views)
  • Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (424 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

  • 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 […]
  • MIA (Miami) on 2023-03-31 March 31, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Mar 31, 06:00 - 08:00 UTCMar 21, 19:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in MIA (Miami) datacenter on 2023-03-31 between 06:00 and 08:00 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 2023-03-28 March 28, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Mar 28, 17:00 - 23:00 UTCMar 21, 09:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ICN (Seoul) datacenter on 2023-03-28 between 17:00 and 23:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 103.192.228.242 | SD March 22, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 18,542 | First: 2017-04-19 | Last: 2023-03-22
  • 103.20.11.183 | SD March 22, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 4,310 | First: 2017-01-11 | Last: 2023-03-22
  • 43.229.241.88 | SD March 22, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,476 | First: 2017-01-22 | Last: 2023-03-22
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 893 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel