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: Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 – Extension of prescribed period in certain cases

Dr. Pankaj Kumar Vs Prerna on 16 Dec 2020

Posted on September 27, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Jharkhand High Court granted divorce to the husband, not on the ground of cruelty by wife, but on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

From Para 21,

21. We, therefore, proceed to answer this question as this issue has not yet been decided by this Court. We may not have to labour hard in this regard since the Full Bench of Bombay High Court has squarely dealt with the same issue concerning applicability of section 19(3) of the Family Courts’ Act, 1984 and section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Ac, 1955 on the period of limitation governing the filing of an appeal before the High Court from the suit s instituted under Hindu Marriage Act concerning the rights of the parties such as, dissolution of marriage, restitution of conjugal right, declaration of a marriage as null and void, judicial separation, etc.

This view has been further followed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Gunjan v. Praveen ( Supra), Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kuldeep Yadav v. Anita Yadav ( and Delhi High Court in the cases of R.R.D. (Supra) and DC (Supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. The
rationale behind taking such a view is that the Act of 1984 provides for a special forum relating to matrimonial dispute and for that, special procedure was devised for expeditious adjudication of the case. Provisions of section 20 thereof containing the obstante clause has to be construed in that context, whereas Parliament being conscious of the period of limitation of 30 days prescribed under section 19(3) of Family Courts’ Act, 1984 chose to make suitable amendment in section 39(4) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by enlarging the period of limitation from 30 days to 90 days keeping into account the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Savitri Pandey (supra) and
the rationale behind it. It is true that in a country like us where millions of people face financial hardship for litigating a matter and considerable time, money and energy have to be spent in pursuing the appeal given the difficult geographical condition, access to justice may become illusory in approaching the Court of Appeal within a small period of 30 day and amendment to section 28(4) introduced in 2003 to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 being the later enactment in point of time compared to the provisions of section 19(3) under the Family Courts’ Act, 1984, the intention of the Legislature to provide a larger time period for preferring an appeal needs to be furthered in order to resolve this inconsistency by adopting the principles of harmonious construction. We are, therefore, inclined to follow the principles laid down by the Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in this regard. The Hindu Marriage Act being a special legislation, the provisions governing the period of limitation for preferring an appeal arising out of the decisions of the Family Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 should be governed by larger period of limitation of 90 days prescribed under section 28(4) thereof. The second question posed for determination at the outset is also answered in the aforesaid manner in the affirmative. Having held so, the instant appeal does not suffer from any delay since the original petition was filed within a period of 90 days from the date of the impugned order i.e. 05.08.2015. As such, there is no delay in preferring the instant appeal. I.A. No. 539/2020 is disposed of.

Dr. Pankaj Kumar Vs Prerna on 16 Dec 2020

2023-Mar-31: The parties settled.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that since the parties have settled the matrimonial dispute in all respects and the disposal / withdrawal of two pending cases against each other is only a matter of time where both the parties are taking steps and joint compromise petition has been filed in one of them whereas in the other they would be filing the joint compromise petition, the appeal itself can be disposed of in terms of the settlement by dissolution of the marriage as they are living separately also.
Having regard to the aforesaid state of facts and that the parties have settled the matter amicably amongst themselves during course of mediation at JHALSA and have decided to live separately without any condition of permanent alimony, there is no point in keeping this appeal pending as no lis survives to be adjudicated upon. As such, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the settlement jointly signed by the parties on 7th November 2021 part of the mediation report dated 16th November 2021 bearing letter no.2513. As such, marriage between the parties is dissolved. Parties are at idem that the two pending cases shall be withdrawn or disposed of parties on the basis of the joint settlement between the parties. They have also agreed not to institute any future cases against each other. Parties should abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement. The settlement should form part of the decree. Decree accordingly.

Dr. Pankaj Kumar Vs Prerna on 31 Mar 2023

Index of judgements on Divorce Appeals is here.

Posted in High Court of Jharkhand Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Dr. Pankaj Kumar Vs Prerna Family Courts Act Sec 19 - Appeal HM Act 28 - Appeals from Decrees and Orders Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases | Leave a comment

Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs Vs State of AP and Ors on 24 Feb 2011

Posted on July 22, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court held as follows,

From Para 26,

26. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” can not be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the Court concludes that there is no justification for the delay. In our opinion, the approach adopted by the High Court tends to show the absence of judicial balance and restraint, which a Judge is required to maintain whilst adjudicating any lis between the
parties. We are rather pained to notice that in this case, not being satisfied with the use of mere intemperate language, the High Court resorted to blatant sarcasms. The use of unduly strong intemperate or extravagant language in a judgment has been repeatedly disapproved by this Court in a number of cases. Whilst considering applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections can not and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers.


Citations: [2011 SCALE 2 703], [2011 AIR SC 1199], [2011 AIR SC 1459], [2011 SUPREME 2 174], [2011 AIOL 144], [2011 SLT 2 378], [2011 BOMCR SC 5 857], [2011 JT 2 540], [2011 SCC 4 363], [2011 MHLJ SC 4 104], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 2 880], [2011 ALR 86 59], [2011 AWC SC 3 2295], [2011 SCSUPPL CHN 2 130], [2011 CLT SC 112 152], [2011 KCCR SN 2 124], [2011 LW 3 26], [2011 SCR 3 2172909 CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2913 2005], [2011 BOMCR 5 857], [2011 KCCRSN 2 124], [2011 RCR CIVIL 2 880], [2011 AIR SCW 1459]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/912526/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af08e4b0149711415652

https://vlex.in/vid/c-no-002909-002913-852352762

Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs Vs State of AP and Ors Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt Vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel on 02 May 2022

Posted on February 4, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on landmark judgment here and here, Single judge bench of Gujarat High Court condoned the delay of 3330 days, considering the lapse was on the part of the advocate who did not file the Written Statement in the prescribed time.

Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt Vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel on 02 May 2022
Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt Vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel | Leave a comment

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Ors Vs Subrata Borah Chowlek and Anr on 12 Nov 2010

Posted on February 4, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows with respect to granting exemption from limitation under Limitation Act 1963,

From Para 7,

7. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that in the instant case a sufficient cause had been made out for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and therefore, the High Court erred in declining to condone the same. It is true that even upon showing a sufficient cause, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as a matter of right, yet it is trite that in construing sufficient cause, the Courts generally follow a liberal approach particularly when no negligence, inaction or mala fides can be imputed to the party.

From Para 11,

11.It is manifest that though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 envisages the explanation of delay to the satisfaction of the Court, and makes no distinction between the State and the citizen, nonetheless adoption of a strict standard of proof in case of the Government, which is dependant on the actions of its officials, who often do not have any personal interest in its transactions, may lead to grave miscarriage of justice and therefore, certain amount of latitude is permissible in such cases.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Ors Vs Subrata Borah Chowlek and Anr on 12 Nov 2010

Citations : [2010 SCC 14 419], [2011 AIR SC 0 269], [2011 LW 1 385], [2011 KCCR SC SN 1 44], [2011 MLJ 1 1010], [2011 LLN 2 43], [2011 CUTLT SUPPL 826], [2010 AIOL 787], [2010 ELT SC 262 3], [2010 SCALE 12 209], [2011 SCC L&S 2 581], [2012 SCC CIV 1 640], [2011 AIC 97 34], [2011 ALR 84 462], [2011 AIR SC SUPP 446], [2011 FLR 130 324], [2011 AIR SCW 269], [2011 JT SC 1 535], [2011 CAL LT 2 91]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29521266/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aee4e4b01497114150a9

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Ors Vs Subrata Borah Chowlek and Anr Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Malhan and 17 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 07 Feb 2022

Posted on July 11, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Allahabad High Court held that, Once the written statement contains an admission in favor of the plaintiff, the amendment of such admission of the defendants cannot be allowed to be withdrawn and such withdrawal would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff which would cause him irretrievable prejudice. In the present case the question now is whether the admission made by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff can be withdrawn and the answer in the language of the apex court is ‘not permissible’.

From Para 4,

4. We have heard Sri Madan Mohan Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the review applicants, and requested him to explain the delay in filing the review application, to which he gave a strange reply that he advised his clients that they may take a chance by filing this review application after a period of six years. We are pained to note that an advocate should not give such an advise when there is no error apparent on the face of record nor was there any other reason that why the matter be re-agitated after it was finally decided.

From Para 7,

7. The expression “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of Act, 1963 has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally a delay in preferring appeal may be condoned in interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is
imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, 1987(2) SCC 107, the Court said, that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

Malhan and 17 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 07 Feb 2022
Posted in High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Advocate Antics Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases Malhan and 17 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr | Leave a comment

Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012

Posted on August 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court gave this landmark reportable judgment regd delay condonation under Sec 5 of Limitation Act.

13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated
benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the
Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

 

Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012

Citations: [2012 AIR SC 1506], [2012 ALR 91 879], [2012 AWC SC 3 2651], [2012 CALLT SC 3 65], [2012 SCSUPPL CHN 3 20], [2012 CLT 113 1066], [2012 COMPCAS SC 174 387], [2012 CTC 2 240], [2012 ELT SC 277 289], [2012 GLH 1 670], [2012 ITR SC 348 7], [2012 JLJR 2 252], [2012 JCR SC 3 59], [2012 PLJR 2 371], [2012 RLW SC 3 2142], [2012 SCALE 2 782], [2012 SCC 3 563], [2013 SLJ SC 1 320], [2012 TAXMAN SC 207 163], [2012 SCC CIV 2 327], [2012 SCC CRI 2 580], [2012 SCC L&S 1 649], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 192], [2012 GUJ LH 1 670], [2012 AIC 112 69], [2012 CALLJ 2 93], [2012 CALLT 3 65], [2012 VST 54 188], [2012 SCT 2 269], [2012 SUPREME 2 244], [2012 CLT 1 338], [2012 AIR SC 0 1812], [2012 SCR 1 1045], [2012 SLT 2 312], [2012 JT 2 483], [2012 CHN SC 3 20], [2012 CCC 2 1], [2012 AIOL 103], [2012 SCC L&S 2 649], [2012 SCJ 3 873], [2012 SCC CR 2 580], [2012 LW 4 100], [2013 CPR 2 306], [2013 CPR 3 622], [2012 CUTLT 113 1066], [2012 SCR 0 500], [2012 TAXMANNCOM SC 20 347]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20289457/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af18e4b014971141598b

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Dismissed Due to Delay In Appeals Filed Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Vanka Radhamanohari Vs Vanka Venkata Reddy And Ors on 20 April 1993

Posted on February 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that,

6. At times it has come to our notice that many courts are treating the provisions of Section 468 and Section 473 of the Code as provisions parallel to the periods of limitation provided in the Limitation Act and the requirement of satisfying the court that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of that Act. There is a basic difference between Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 473 of the Code. For exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the onus is on the appellant or the applicant to satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, whereas Section 473 enjoins a duty on the court to examine not only whether such delay has been explained but as to whether it is the requirement of the justice to condone or ignore such delay. As such, whenever the bar of Section 468 is applicable, the court has to apply its mind on the question, whether it is necessary to condone such delay in the interests of justice. While examining the question as to whether it is necessary to condone the delay in the interest of justice, the Court has to take note of the nature of offence, the class to which the victim belongs, including the background of the victim. If the power under section 473 of the code is to be exercised in the interests of justice, then while considering the grievance by a lady, of torture, cruelty and inhuman treatment, by the husband and the relatives of the husband, the interest of justice requires a deeper examination of such grievances, instead of applying the rule of limitation and saying that with lapse of time the cause of action itself has come to an end. The general rule of limitation is based on the Latin maxim : vigilantibus, et non, dormientibus, jura subveniunt (the vigilant, and not the sleepy, are assisted by the laws). That maxim cannot be applied in connection with offences relating to cruelty against women.

7. It is true that the object of introducing Section 468 was to put a bar of limitation on prosecutions and to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as it was thought proper that after a long lapse of time, launching of prosecution may be vexatious, because by that time even the evidence may disappear. This aspect has been mentioned in the statement and object, for introducing a period of limitation, as well as by this Court in the case of State Of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh 1981 3 SCC 34. But, that consideration cannot be extended to matrimonial offences, where the allegations are of cruelty, torture and assault by the husband or other members of the family to the complainant. It is a matter of common experience that victim is subjected to such cruelty repeatedly and it is more or less like a continuing offence. It is only as a last resort that a wife openly comes before a court to unfold and relate the day-to-day torture and cruelty faced by her, inside the house, which many of such victims do not like to be made public. As such, courts while considering the question of limitation for an offence under Section 498-A i.e subjecting a woman to cruelty by her husband or the relative of her husband, should judge that question, in the light of section 473 of the code, which requires the Court, not only to examine as to whether the delay has been properly explained, but as to whether “it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice”.

 

Vanka Radhamanohari Vs Vanka Venkata Reddy And Ors on 20 April 1993

Citations: [1993 (2) BLJR 875], [1993 (2) Crimes 275 SC], [I (1994) DMC 172 SC], [JT 1993 (4) SC 17], [1993 (2) SCALE 570], [(1993) 3 SCC 4]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/849288/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac8ce4b014971140f1d2

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation CrPC 473 - Extension of period of limitation in certain cases Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases Vanka Radhamanohari Vs Vanka Venkata Reddy And Ors | Leave a comment

Supreme Court and High Court Judgments to cite in Discharge (u/s 227 or 239) or Quash petition (u/s 482)

Posted on April 6, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list the Supreme Court of India judgments applicable to various legal grounds to go for Discharge u/s 227 or 239 or 245 and Quash u/s 482.

Included few High Court judgments too for reference. Read the individual judgments to find the operative text of the respective judgments.

There are quite a few legal grounds on the basis of which a case can be discharged at Magistrate/Sessions Court or Quashed (High Court and Supreme Court).

Note1: Read State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004 to understand that during Quash proceedings at High Court, Evidence of Sterling/Unimpeachable Quality from Defence/Accused can be adduced to dismantle the case of Prosecution at Trial Court.)

Note2: Second 482 CrPC petition is maintainable as per Landmark judgment in ‘Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs Mohan Singh and Ors on 08 Oct 1974‘.

Note3: A Petition under section 482 CrPC is maintainable even when a Revision is available under 397/401 CrPC says, ‘Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 17 Dec 2008‘.

Note4: Read recent landmark decision of a Full bench of the Apex Court on when to/not Quash a FIR/case in ‘Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors‘ [2021 SCC ONLINE SC 315]

Note: If you want to read this thread from beginning, go here.

No Jurisdiction Judgments

  1. Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 5 October, 1999 (1999) 8 SCC 728
  2. Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors Vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr on 17 August, 2004
  3. Manish Ratan And Others Vs State Of M.P And Another on 01 Nov 2006
  4. Sonu and others Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another on 10 October, 2007
  5. Bhura Ram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 2 April, 2008
  6. Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 17 October, 2012 (Includes delay in complaint, vague allegations)
  7. Sivangala Thandi Deepak & Others Vs The State of A.P. on 11 July 2014
  8. Amarendu Jyoti And Others vs. State Of Chhattisgarh And Others on 4 Aug, 2014
  9. Sudhir Mansinghka Vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 August, 2015
  10. Amit Kumar Yadav And Others vs State Of Telangana on 11 September, 2015 (AP High Court judgment; Includes delay in complaint, perjury)
  11. G.Ramamoorthy Vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2017
  12. Manoj Vishwakarma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 September, 2017
  13. Vishnu Mohan Jha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 21 November, 2017
  14. Yadwinder Singh & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 August, 2018
  15. Rupali Devi Vs State of UP and Ors on 09 April, 2019 (Bad law: No territorial Jurisdiction is applicable in 498A IPC cases); Interestingly, no other new/overruling judgment till date.

 

Vague and General and omnibus Allegations

  1. MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997 (Complaint Case)
  2. Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998 (Complaint Case)
  3. B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003 (High Courts can quash a FIR or non-compoundable cases also not listed under CrPC 320)
  4. Neelu Chopra and Anr Vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009
  5. Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010
  6. Joseph Salvaraj A Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 4 Jul 2011 [SC: Quash can be done even after charge sheet is filed by Police]
  7. Gian Singh Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012 (Scenarios when a criminal proceeding can be quashed)
  8. Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs. Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and others on 25 September, 2012
  9. Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014
  10. Sandeep Singh Bais Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2017
  11. Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018 [Chattisgarh HC: DV on relatives quashed who do not have shared household]
  12. Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018 (AP High Court)
  13. Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. Anr on 03 Apr 2019 (Telangana High Court: No evidence of Dowry Transaction)
  14. Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (Conviction of 498A IPC set aside due to settlement; Cites BS Joshi caselaw)
  15. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022 (498A IPC quashed due to General and Omnibus allegations)
  16. Krishnanand Mishra and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand on 09 Aug 2023 [Jharkhand HC: Misuse of Section 498A IPC; General and Omnibus allegations]
  17. Rajan and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 17 Aug 2023 [Package of 5 cases laid on parents of husband]
  18. Abhishek Gour Vs State of MP on 31 Aug 2023 [SC: Quash can be done even after charge sheet is filed by Police]
  19. Rakesh Rajput and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 31 Oct 2023 [Jharkhand HC: Misuse of Section 498A IPC; General and Omnibus allegations]
  20. Mamta Shailesh Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors on 29 Jan 2024 [SC: Quash can be done even after charge sheet is filed by Police]
  21. Mainoddin Vs State of Karnataka on 02 Feb 2024 [Relied on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar]
  22. Mamida Anil Kumar Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Feb 2024 [Relying on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar, Apex Court trashed the nonsensical decision of AP High Court]
  23. Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 2024 [DHC: Relied on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar]
  24. Mathi Vijaya Lakshmi and Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 03 May 2024 [TelHC: Relied on Category 1 of Bhajan lal and Preethi Gupta]
  25. CB Prakash and Anr Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 04 Jun 2024 [KarHC: Relied on Kahkashan Kausar]
  26. Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and Anr Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 28 Aug 2024 [SC: FIR can be quashed even after filing of CS]
  27. Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024 [SC: Counterblast case]
  28. Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025 [Making generic and ambiguous allegations is abuse of process of law]

 

Allegations do not attract provisions of Sections in FIR

  1. R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960
  2. Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane on 19 March, 1975
  3. State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy AIR 1977 SC 1489 [Inadequate material to sustain the charge of prosecution]
  4. Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare v State of Maharashtra & Ors 1990 (2) RCR 18
  5. State Of Haryana Vs Ch Bhajan Lal on 21 November, 1990 [A set of subsequent case laws arose from this landmark judgment]
  6. Richhpal Kaur v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2)
  7. V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 AIR 1994 SC 710
  8. State of H.P.V Nikku Ram & Ors 1995 (6) SCC 219
  9. Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration and Anr on 31 July 1996
  10. Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy AIR 1998 SC 121
  11. Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P.; (2002) 7 SCC 414
  12. Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078
  13. Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 2003 (Delhi High Court)
  14. Manju Ram Kalita vs State Of Assam on 29 May, 2009 (Conviction under IPC 498A set aside)
  15. Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
  16. U.Suvetha Vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009 (Concubine is not a relative of husband)
  17. Shakson Belthissor Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009 [Allegations do not attract 498A IPC ingredients]
  18. Vijeta Gajra Vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 July, 2010
  19. Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010 [SC: Family members who are residing away from accused No.1 cannot be roped into the case]
  20. Sunita Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 September, 2010
  21. S Praveen Vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012
  22. Asha Devi & Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 24 July, 2012
  23. Banti And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2012
  24. Movva Raja Ram Vs State Of A.P. on 18 June, 2013
  25. State Of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh on 2 July, 2014
  26. Babita Sumanprakash Soni Vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 December, 2014 (Concubine is not a relative of husband; IPC 494 is not applicable on concubine)
  27. Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015
  28. Gayathri Kunjithaya Vs State Of Kerala On 19 January 2015
  29. Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 February 2015 [Overruled Appasaheb and Vipin Jaiswal]
  30. Dr. Rajneesh Satyadev Rajpurohit Vs Magistrate No.3 on 16 April, 2015
  31. Shaik Riayazun Bee Vs The State Of A.P. on 1 June, 2016
  32. Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017 [Allegations do not attract 498A and 406 IPC ingredients]
  33. Subramani Vs The Sub-Inspector Of Police on 31 October, 2017 (Marriage should be there, to apply IPC 498A)
  34. K R Nandakumar Vs State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2018
  35. K. Subba Rao Vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2018
  36. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 11 Nov 2020 [allegations do not attract the provision of IPC 306; Separate FIRs Filed At Different Jurisdictions And In Same Incident Under Same Offence NOT allowed]
  37. Samad Habib Mithani and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 25 Jul 2024 [relying on R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab, Family members cannot be roped into the case]
  38. Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024 [relying on R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab, Achin Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Bhajan Lal, quashed proceedings; 211 IPC also suggested]
  39. Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024 [MPHC:absence of specific date and time when the complainant-wife was subjected to the demand of dowry is sufficient to quash Dowry demand allegation]

 

Maliciously Instituted/ Counterblast cases/ Delay Not explained Cases

  1. State of Karnataka Vs M. Devendrappa and Anr on 16 Jan 2002 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
  2. Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007 [Time-barred u/s 468]
  3. Priya Vrat Singh & Ors Vs Shyam Ji Sahai on 5 August, 2008
  4. State Of A.P Vs M. Madhusudhan Rao on 24 October, 2008
  5. MS Eicher Tractors Ltd and Ors Vs Harihar Singh and Anr on 7 Nov 2008 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
  6. Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
  7. Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012 [Various liberal principles in condoning delays under Sec 5 of Limitation Act; Time limitation applies to Govt instrumentality-appellant]
  8. Rajiv Thapar and Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013 [SC: guidelines to/not to quash/discharge]
  9. Vineet Kumar And Ors Vs State Of UP & Anr on 31 March, 2017
  10. State vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017
  11. Chandresh Shrivastava Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2018
  12. Dudekula Khasim Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 Mar 2020 [APHC: Counterblast case to Husband’s divorce case]
  13. Abhishek Singh Vs State of M.P. on 26 Dec 2022 [MPHC: 498A IPC covers invalid marriages also]
  14. Swapan Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal on 21 Aug 2023 [CalHC: proceeding are instituted only to fulfil personal grudge; Category 1 of Bhajan lal]
  15. Achin Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Anr on 03 May 2024 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
  16. Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 15 May 2024 [SC: FIR which was lodged after 39 days of the incident, does not indicate the date or time]
  17. Musin Babulal Thengade and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 29 Jan 2025 [BomHC: Limitation for prosecution under Section 498-A does not continue for indefinite period]

 

Material evidence required that supports allegations

  1. R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960
  2. Hira Lal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2865
  3. Kaliyaperumal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828
  4. CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005
  5. Parkash Singh Badal and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 6 December 2006 [there prima facie appears existence of any material and not the sufficiency of the materials]
  6. Ran Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr, Case no. appeal (Crl) 222 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3089 of 2006
  7. M. Srinivasulu v. State of A.P., AIR 2007 SC 3146
  8. Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 763 [Overruled in Rajinder Singh here]
  9. Shivanand Mallappa Koti v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 2314
  10. Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 3050
  11. Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013 [Demand of Property has to be in connection with marriage, as per Sec 2 of DP Act 1961] [Overruled in Rajinder Singh here]
  12. Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013 [Part-paid dowry is in Connection with Marriage]
  13. M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020 [Demand of Property has to be in connection with marriage, as per Sec 2 of DP Act 1961]

 

Approaching Court with unclean hands

  1. All Perjury judgments can be gainfully utilized. They are here.

 

498A IPC not maintainable due to null and void marriage/Earlier Divorce

  1. Shivcharan Lal Verma and Anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 19 Feb 2002 [SC]
  2. Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam And Others on 8 Jan 2004 [SC: Held as per incuriam]
  3. Mohit Gupta and Ors vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 16 Oct 2006 [DelHC]
  4. Mohammad Miyan and Ors Vs State of UP on 21 Aug 2018 [SC: Earlier divorced hence offences of IPC 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act is not tenable/maintainable]
  5. Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021 [TSHC: Relying on Mohammad Miyan, Earlier divorced hence offences of IPC 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act is not tenable/maintainable]
  6. Kode Narasimha Kumar and Ors Vs State of AP on 10 Nov 2022 [APHC: Relying on Mohammad Miyan, Earlier divorced hence offences of IPC 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act is not tenable/maintainable]
  7. P Sivakumar and 2 Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 09 Feb 2023 [SC]
  8. Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023 [KarHC]
  9. M.Sreenivasulu and Ors Vs State of AP and Ors on 15 May 2024 [APHC]

 

Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C.

  1. All discharge judgments u/s 227 CrPC can be found here.

 

Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C.

  1. All discharge judgments u/s 239 CrPC can be found here.

 

 


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | 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 Counterblast case CrPC 227 - Discharged CrPC 239 - Discharged CrPC 482 - Quash CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed IPC 494 - Not Made Out Against Woman IPC 498a - Not Made Out Is Not Relative Of Husband Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases Mala Fide Untenable Maliciously Instituted Case Solely Intended to Harass No Material To Sustain Charge No Territorial Jurisdiction Sandeep Pamarati | 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
monapatelt Mona Patel 🇮🇳🐅🌳 @monapatelt ·
13 Jul

4 Indians who Seemed Foreign interference

🎯 1792 - Tippu Sultan invites Afghan ruler Zaman Shan to join forces to create Islamic State !

🎯 1947 - Nehru Seeks UN intervention in Kashmir !

🎯 2019 - Mamta asks UN to decide Indian Citizenship rules !

🎯 Kapil Sibal always…

Reply on Twitter 1944517657585488115 Retweet on Twitter 1944517657585488115 1656 Like on Twitter 1944517657585488115 2743 X 1944517657585488115
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
swathireddytdp Swathi Reddy @swathireddytdp ·
18h

మాకు గొడ్డలి గుర్తు కావాలి. ఎలక్షన్ కమిషన్ కు లేఖ రాసిన వైసిపి ఫౌండర్ శివకుమార్

Reply on Twitter 1944795484205232184 Retweet on Twitter 1944795484205232184 20 Like on Twitter 1944795484205232184 63 X 1944795484205232184
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
andhranexus Andhra Nexus @andhranexus ·
14 Jul

🚨 Pulasa season has begun in Godavari as muddy water entered the river.

Traders paying ₹5,000 in advance to get early stock. In Yanam, 1kg Pulasa was sold for ₹18,000.

Officials say overfishing is harming mother fish, reducing availability.
#AndhraPradesh #Godavari #Pulasa

Reply on Twitter 1944696380754432284 Retweet on Twitter 1944696380754432284 56 Like on Twitter 1944696380754432284 340 X 1944696380754432284
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
libsoftiktok Libs of TikTok @libsoftiktok ·
14 Jul

HOLY SHLIT

NYT confirms Fauci’s pardon was signed by autopen at the direction of an assistant

2

Reply on Twitter 1944597725552459816 Retweet on Twitter 1944597725552459816 5013 Like on Twitter 1944597725552459816 29447 X 1944597725552459816
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Ekta Kapur Vs Kunal Kapur on 21 May 2025 July 15, 2025
  • Dudekula Khasim Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 Mar 2020 July 14, 2025
  • Evidence Act Sec 65 – Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given July 14, 2025
  • State of AP Vs Matham Vijaya Rao and Anr on 07 Jul 2025 July 14, 2025
  • Dowry Prohibition Officers of Andhra Pradesh working? July 13, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (3,008 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (2,444 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (2,371 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,797 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (1,684 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (1,392 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (1,178 views)
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 (1,023 views)
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 (961 views)
  • Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023 (841 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (405)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (376)Landmark Case (370)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (367)1-Judge Bench Decision (296)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (275)Work-In-Progress Article (216)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (97)Sandeep Pamarati (93)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 (61)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 (44)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)CrPC 482 - Quash (39)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (39)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (719)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (320)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (180)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (141)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (107)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (55)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (50)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (50)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (43)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (36)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)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

  • July 2025 (6)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • BCN (Barcelona) on 2025-07-22 July 22, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 22, 01:00 - 04:00 UTCJul 10, 15:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BCN (Barcelona) datacenter on 2025-07-22 between 01:00 and 04:00 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 […]
  • CGB (Cuiaba) on 2025-07-17 July 17, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 17, 08:45 - 12:45 UTCJul 14, 16:33 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in CGB (Cuiaba) datacenter on 2025-07-17 between 08:45 and 12:45 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 […]
  • CNF (Belo Horizonte) on 2025-07-17 July 17, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 17, 08:15 - 11:15 UTCJul 14, 16:35 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in CNF (Belo Horizonte) datacenter on 2025-07-17 between 08:15 and 11:15 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

  • 177.220.192.44 | SD July 14, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 3,406 | First: 2020-05-01 | Last: 2025-07-14
  • 117.88.102.87 | SD July 14, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,148 | First: 2024-09-27 | Last: 2025-07-14
  • 177.220.192.43 | SD July 14, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 3,669 | First: 2020-04-21 | Last: 2025-07-14
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1611 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel