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: CrPC 482 – Quash

Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017

Posted on August 31, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is classic case of non-application of judicial mind all all levels of a criminal case proceedings, until the Hon’ble Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that the allegations in this case do not attract ingredients of IPC 498A or IPC 406 and thereby quashed the entire proceedings for good.

From Paras 8 and 9,

8. We are conscious of the fact that, Section 498-A was added to the Code with a view to punish the husband or any of his relatives, who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Keeping the aforementioned object in mind, we have dealt with the matter. We do not find any allegation of subjecting the complainant to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The records at hand could not disclose any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the complainant. So also, there is nothing on record to show that there was a demand of dowry by the appellants or any of their relatives, either prior to the marriage, during the marriage or after the marriage. The record also does not disclose anywhere that the husband of the complainant acted, with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security.

9. The ingredients of criminal breach of trust are also not forthcoming from the records as against the appellants. The allegations contained in the complaint and the charge-sheet do not satisfy the definition of criminal breach of trust, as contained in Section 405 IPC. In view of the blurred allegations, and as we find that the complainant is only citing the incidents of unhappiness with her husband, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the prosecution against the appellants. This is a case where there is a total absence of allegations for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and Section 406 IPC. In the matter on hand, the allegations made in the first information report as well as the material collected during the investigation, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the appellant-accused. So also the uncontroverted allegations found against the appellants do not disclose the commission of the offence alleged and make out a case against the accused. The proceedings initiated against the appellants are liable to be quashed.

Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017

The AP High Court order is here.


Citations : [2017 SCC 9 413], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1049], [2017 AIR SC 4434], [2017 ALLCC 101 359], [2017 CCR SC 4 140], [2017 DMCSC 3 529], [2017 RCR CRIMINAL 4 113], [2017 SCALE 11 131], [2017 SCC CRI 3 740]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164920459/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/59b03f0fce686e45ff91df85

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/varala-bharath-kumar-vs-the-state-of-telangana-998

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations CrPC 482 - Quash CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court IPC 406 - Not Made Out IPC 498a - Not Made Out Non-Reportable Judgement or Order Quash Dismissal is Set Aside Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana | Leave a comment

Yadwinder Singh & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 August, 2018

Posted on August 31, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A detailed judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, categorically held that police at Nalagarh had no jurisdiction, as has/had been held hereinabove, proceedings if any pending before Courts at Nalagarh cannot be allowed to sustain and thereby the FIR dated 7.10.2014 as well as consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside

And the knife is at liberty to initiate action, if any, against the petitioners, on account of allegations contained in impugned FIR but at Jallandhar(Pb), either by lodging fresh FIR or by pursuing complaint filed by her at Women Cell Jallandhar.

Yadwinder Singh & Others Vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 August, 2018
Posted in High Court of Himachal Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 - Quash CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court No Territorial Jurisdiction Sandeep Pamarati Yadwinder Singh and Others vs State Of H.P. and Others | Leave a comment

Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr Vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 16 September, 2014

Posted on August 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this quash judgment under CrPC 482 from Hon’ble Supreme Court, the main contention of IPC 406 was not even entertained on the distant relative of husband.

 

Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr Vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 16 September, 2014
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 - Quash CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed IPC 406 - Not Made Out Kailash Chandra Agrawal and Anr Vs State Of U.P. and Ors | Leave a comment

R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab on 25 March, 1960

Posted on July 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down three categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction could and should be exercised to quash proceedings:

(i) where there was a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint did not make out the offence alleged; and
(iii)where either there was no legal evidence adduced in support of the charge or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly failed to prove the charge.

Conclusion:

It is not a case where the appellant can justly contend that on the face of the record the charge levelled against him is unsustainable.

R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960

Citation: [1960 AIR 862], [1960 SCR (3) 311], [(1960) 3 SCR 388], [1960 CRLJ SC 1239], [1960 CRILJ 239], [1961 AWR 31 49], [1960 AIR SC 866]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1033301/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab10e4b014971140b8c1


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

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 - Quash Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Petitioner In Person R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab Reportable Judgement or Order Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Kumar Kamalbabu Bhatt & 2 Vs State Of Gujarat & on 22 January, 2016

Posted on July 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Justice J.B.PARDIWALA in this judgment bins the vague and general allegations in the 498A case and quashed the FIR on the accused.

Funny anecdotes:

From Para 3,

It appears that the first informant holds a degree of Bachelor of Engineering.

….

I take notice of a very curious allegation in the First Information Report that the in-laws forced the daughter-in-law to do her post graduation i.e. Master of Engineering. It appears that the first informant did complete her Masters in Engineering.

….

As usual, soon after the marriage, matrimonial problems cropped up between the husband and the wife.

From Para 4,

For some reason or the other, the first informant thought fit to take up the issue with the Police and left the matrimonial home on 3rd March, 2013. She thought fit to lodge the FIR on 11th November, 2014.

Kumar Kamalbabu Bhatt & 2 Vs State Of Gujarat & on 22 January, 2016

 

An earlier judgment from same wise judge, which he quoted in this judgment is here.

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations CrPC 482 - Quash Kumar Kamalbabu Bhatt and 2 Vs State Of Gujarat Return The Passport To Accused | Leave a comment

Rejilal Vs State Of Kerala on 10 Frebruary, 2017

Posted on July 27, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held that,

Legal Point:

Section 198(1) of the Cr.P.C provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the IPC except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Section 493 comes under Chapter XX of the IPC. Therefore cognizance could be taken only upon a complaint. Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C which defines ‘complaint’ specifically excludes a police report.

Finally,

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 offence under section 494 of the IPC, the court can take cognizance thereof even on a police report. That is not the case in the present case. Here section 420 IPC, a cognizable offence, was shown in the FIR and the charge-sheet without any basis whatsoever. You cannot bypass section 198 of the Cr.P.C by simply adding a cognizable offence in the FIR and the charge-sheet without any basis as was done in the present case. Section 420 IPC was shown in the present case only to get over the bar under section 198 (1) of the Cr.P.C. That ‘smartness’ cannot be permitted. Magistrates shall be very careful and cautious when they are called upon to take cognizance of an offence falling under Chapter XX of the IPC upon a police report. The Magistrate shall ascertain whether the investigating officer included a cognizable offence in the FIR, charge-sheet et cetera only to get over the bar under section 198 (1) of the Cr.P.C. It is crystal clear in the present case that section 420 of the IPC is shown only to bypass the bar under section 198 (1) of the Cr.P.C.

Rejilal Vs State Of Kerala on 10 Frebruary, 2017
Posted in High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 198(1) - Prosecution for Offences Against Marriage CrPC 482 - Quash Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Rejilal Vs State Of Kerala | Leave a comment

Sachin Vs Sau. Sushma on 6 May, 2014

Posted on July 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in this judgment for recovering maintenance amount, has held that

From Para 5,

Therefore, it is abundantly clear that basically the learned Magistrate has to follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of maintenance either final or interim. Subsection (2) of Section 28 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be pressed into service when there is no provision available for implementing a particular order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. If the procedure is available in Code of Criminal Procedure, that is necessarily to be followed.

From Para 9,

As such the first option available to the Magistrate was to issue a warrant for levying fine. If whole of the amount was recovered by adopting the procedure under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the question of putting the defaulter in prison did not arise. In case amount was not recovered or part of it was recovered and part of it was not recovered, then the question would have arisen as to how much sentence should be imposed on the defaulter as per the provision laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The stage of issuing warrant comes only after sentencing and not before that.

Sachin Vs Sau. Sushma on 6 May, 2014
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 125(3) or BNSS 144(3) - No Automatic Arrest on Failure To Pay Maintenance CrPC 421 - Warrant for levy of fine CrPC 482 - Quash Follow CrPC 421 For Maintenance Recovery Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes No Automatic Arrest Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 PWDV Act Sec 28(2) - No NBW Allowed Sachin Vs Sau. Sushma | Leave a comment

Petitioner Vs State of Kerala on 19 January 2015

Posted on July 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, the knife alleged illicit relationship between the 1st accused and the petitioner herein.

Update: Since there is personal information displayed in the judgment, with due respect to and on request of the parties involved, the address particulars are removed in the below PDF.

Further Update as on 22-08-2020:

Upon further request received on Whatsapp and on call, I decided to oblige the caller and her husband, to remove the name of the petitioner also from the title, tag and pdf judgment.

Petitioner Vs State of Kerala on 19 January 2015 - further redacted

Citations: [2015 SCC ONLINE KER 2315]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29927975/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e3c04a93261a672b6712


 

Posted in High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 - Quash Is Not Relative Of Husband Petitioner Vs State Of Kerala Redacted Post | Leave a comment

Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015

Posted on July 24, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on U.Suvetha Vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009, Hon’ble High Court of Ranchi has held that

since the status of the petitioner does not come within the definition of ‘relative’ as envisaged u/s 498A I.P.C., she cannot be proceeded against for the offences committed under the said section.

Moreover,

So far as the Section 323/ 406 I.P.C. is concerned, allegations have been specifically levelled against other accused persons and in that context also the complaint petition does not reveal any offence so as to prosecute the petitioner in this present criminal case.

 

Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015
Posted in High Court of Ranchi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 - Quash CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand Is Not Relative Of Husband | Leave a comment

Vijeta Gajra Vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 July, 2010

Posted on July 24, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that IPC 498A is applicable to only relatives of husband who are blood relatives or by marriage. And thereby quashed the IPC 498A allegation from FIR. It let the proceeding to continue with IPC 406, in regards to the jewelry.

 

Vijeta Gajra Vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 July, 2010

 

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs CrPC 482 - Quash IPC 498a - Not Made Out Is Not Relative Of Husband Sandeep Pamarati Vijeta Gajra Vs State Of Nct Of Delhi | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

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
rose_k01 Rosy @rose_k01 ·
10 Jul

Women in the Yao village of China are famous for having the Longest hair in the World averaging 6 feet long. Women in their 80s still don't have a Single grey hair!! Their secret is Fermented Rice water. Watch How they make & use it 🍚🌾💧

Reply on Twitter 2075635918879523325 Retweet on Twitter 2075635918879523325 897 Like on Twitter 2075635918879523325 3906 X 2075635918879523325
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ani ANI @ani ·
12 Jul

Promo | ANI Podcast with R.V.S. Mani, Former Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Premieres Today at 5 PM IST

"Narendra Modi and Amit Shah Were the Targets in the Ishrat Jahan Case."

"None of the Files Had the Term 'Hindu Terror' Until 2010."

"Digvijaya Singh Asked Me to

Reply on Twitter 2076177037165994029 Retweet on Twitter 2076177037165994029 625 Like on Twitter 2076177037165994029 1604 X 2076177037165994029
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
kolla_ch1 చైతన్య కొల్లా @kolla_ch1 ·
11 Jul

రాష్ట్రం మీద పడి.. అడ్డ గాడిదల్లా... అడ్డ దిడ్డంగా పడి దోచుకున్న అడ్డమైన ఎదవలకు ఊడిగం చేస్తూ

డెలివరీ బాయ్ లను అవమానపర్చే

ఆ నెల తక్కువ సన్నాసి మొహాన కొట్టండయ్యా దీన్ని 🤷‍♂️

Reply on Twitter 2076018293836808437 Retweet on Twitter 2076018293836808437 111 Like on Twitter 2076018293836808437 644 X 2076018293836808437
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
shunyta_007 𝐒ɦυ𐓣𝗒𝗍α @shunyta_007 ·
12 Jul

Observation Skills 🔥

Reply on Twitter 2076189650885226496 Retweet on Twitter 2076189650885226496 537 Like on Twitter 2076189650885226496 3147 X 2076189650885226496
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs N.C.T. Delhi and Anr on 23 Mar 2001 July 12, 2026
  • Application for Day-to-Day Trial – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft July 8, 2026
  • Pooja Ramesh Singh Vs JnK Bank and Anr on 02 Jul 2026 July 8, 2026
  • A.S.S.K.Durga Prasad Vs NCDRC and Ors on 24 Jun 2026 July 7, 2026
  • Application for Permanent Exemption from Appearance – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft July 7, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (5,051 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,607 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,533 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (3,008 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,378 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (2,155 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (2,059 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,928 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (1,872 views)
  • Life Cycle of a Perjury Case (1,804 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (436)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (422)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (386)Landmark Case (383)1-Judge Bench Decision (366)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (297)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (91)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (66)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (758)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (187)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (164)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (95)Legal Procedure (83)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (62)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (51)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (47)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • KONURU VINAYKUMAR on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)

Archives of SoK

  • July 2026 (13)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • 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

  • AMS (Amsterdam) on 2026-07-24 July 24, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 24, 00:30 - 06:00 UTC Jul 14, 10:30 UTC Update - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in AMS (Amsterdam) datacenter on 2026-07-24 between 00:30 and 06:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
    Cloudflare

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 85.158.110.120 | S July 14, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 5 | First: 2026-07-14 | Last: 2026-07-14
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1078 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel