Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Vinay Dhawan on 23 January, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL : ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.9.2000
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED FOR ORDER : .03.01.08
DATE OF ORDER :14.01. 08
Sessions case No. 308/06
FIR No. 472/2000
P.S.Rajouri Garden
U/S. 498/406/506/509/384/347/120B/307 IPC and Section 6
Indecent Representation of Woman Act.
State Vs 1. Vinay Dhawan
s/o late Sh. Kamal Kumar
r/o H.No. B 362 (12 ½ yds.)
HMP, Raghbir Nagar, Delhi
Present add: B-2/191,
Raghbir Nagar, Delhi.
2. Ram Prakash s/o Kamal Kumar.
R/o H.No. B -62, Raghbir Nagar,
Delhi.
Present add: B-2/191,
Raghbir Nagar, Delhi.
3. Smt. Chanda Rani
D/o Late Sh. Kamal Kumar
R/o H.No. B-2/191,
Raghbir Nagar, Delhi.
4 Smt. Darshana
w/o late Sh. Kamal Kumar
r/o B-2/191, Raghubir Nagar.
Delhi.
2
JUDGMENT.
1.Accused Vinay Dhawan, Ram Prakash, Chanda Rani and Darshana have been chargesheeted by PS-Rajouri Garden to face trial for offence punishable under section 498A/406/506/509/384/347/120B/307 IPC and Section 6 Indecent Representation of Woman Act.
2. On 12.5.2000 a complaint was received in CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, against the accused persons. It was stated by the complainant Jyoti that she had been married to Vinay Dhawan on 12.12.1998 and her parents had given sufficient dowry to her. The accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry given to her and they used to harass and taunt her. She used to be beaten for the demand of scooter. Her mother in law Darshana, sister in law Chanda and brother in law Ram Prakash had in collusion with her husband, caused beatings to her several times for demand of scooter or consideration thereof. She used to tolerate the same expecting for better days. The atrocities of the accused persons 3 kept increasing. Since her parents had not arranged for scooter or the consideration thereof, the accused persons did not permit her to meet her parents. She was confined inside the house and was also denied food. They used to say that they will starve her to death. She was also made to write false statements regarding her brothers, under the threat of knife. They had also tried to set her ablaze by sprinkling kerosene oil on two occasions. She was not permitted to go outside the house, and used to be blackmailed by threatening to expose her by using her nude photographs. They also coerced her to agree for a mutual Divorce and made her to give a statement in the court that her dowry articles had been returned and that she had been living with her mother for the last six months. Whereas she was confined in a locked room. She was given only water and sometimes one chapati. Her mother made a complaint to the CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar against the accused persons on 2.2.2000. On the abovesaid complaint, she was brought to CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar. Before being brought the Cell she had been tortured and threatened not to disclose the correct facts to the police. On account of the abovesaid fear she made false 4 allegations against her parents to the police. The accused persons used to abet her husband to kill her. On account of the atrocities of the accused persons she had reached a stage of physical condition, where she could not support her weight or even move independently. Her parents had rescued her with the help of police. She prayed for a stern action against her in laws. 2.1. During investigation accused persons were arrested and various documents were collected. Complainant was put to medico-legal examination and on the basis of MLC offence under section 307 IPC was added. Finding sufficient material all the accused persons were chargesheeted for the offences, above mentioned.
3. After compliance with the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., case was committed to the court of sessions and was assigned to the predecessor of this Court.
4. Vide order dated 30.01.2001 charges were framed against the 5 accused persons for offence punishable under section 498A read with 34 IPC, 120B IPC, 307 read with 120B IPC, 347 read with 120B IPC and 384 read with 120 B IPC.
Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During a long drawn trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses. PE was closed on the statement of Special PP, Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi on 28.9.2007. The statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons was recorded and they denied the evidence that had come up against them. It was stated that it was a false and concocted story.
5.1. Defence evidence was sought to be examined and the accused persons examined two witnesses in their support.
6. The star prosecution witness is the complainant Jyoti Dhawan (PW1). Her mother Devi Bai (PW2) is a supporting witness as regards the demand of dowry, harassment to her daughter and her 6 complaint to the police the conduct of the accused persons. She has also proved that her daughter had injuries on her person, when she was rescued. Sanjay Kumar (PW3) is the brother of the complainant. He is also a corroborative witness to the statements of mother and daughter. Dr. S.K. Sharma (PW6), Dr. Anil Khare (PW8), Dr. Umed Singh (PW9), Dr. Aruna Singh (PW11) and Dr. Ajay Sharma (PW15) have proved the medical condition of the complainant at the time of her rescue.
6.1. The remaining witnesses are police officials who have proved various stages of investigation.
7. Accused persons examined Vinod Kumar (DW1), a neighbour who deposed that accused Vinay Dhawan used to take care of his wife and provide her medical facility. Smt. Reena (DW2) is also a witness to the same effect.
8. Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi, Special PP on behalf of the State submitted that the complainant was subjected to inhuman conduct. She was 7 illegally confined to a one room house and denied food. The house lacked even the basic infrastructure to provide for the amenities. It is further argued that accused persons had taken nude photographs of the complainant and used to blackmail her with the threat to publish those photographs. On account of the aforesaid blackmailing she was made to give false statements against her family members and also she was coerced to sign for mutual Divorce and give up her claim for maintenance etc. 8.1. She had also been coerced to make a false statement in the court, where the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act were pending. It is submitted that the accused persons had acted in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy. Despite her extremely poor medical condition, she was not provided any medical aid. She had to be rescued from the matrimonial house with the help of police.
9. Sh. Anupam Sharma and Sh. M.S. Sahi, learned defence counsels have argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case. It has been submitted that the scribe of the complaint 8 Ex.PW1/A has been deposed to be SI Vinay Malik, but there is no explanation as to how and under what circumstances SI Vinay Malik scribed the complaint. The entire case has been orchestrated by SI Vinay Malik who was acting beyond his jurisdiction. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained. The record of complaints prior to May 2000 is not proved. PW2, Devi Bai, admits that she came to know of the disputes, only after 11.05.2000; if that be so why and how did she make complaints to the police earlier in time. The complaint Ex.PW1/A is silent about the demand of scooter or Rs.50,000/-. The depositions referring to demand of scooter or cash are, therefore, an improvement. 9.1. The recovery of nude photographs of the complainant is not established. No public persons was associated in the alleged search recovery.
9.2. As regards the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, it is submitted that complainant was a consenting party to the Divorce proceedings. She had voluntarily made the statement 9 before the learned ADJ at the time of passing the order on the First Motion Petition.
9.3. As regards the medical condition of the complainant, it is submitted that she was suffering from lymph nodules. Accused Vinay Dhawan was taking all due care and had provided her the medical treatment. Referring to the statement of Jyoti Dhawan (PW1) at length, it was submitted by Sh. Sharma that her deposition in the court is entirely an improved version. She was consenting and willing party to the nude photographs and also the Divorce proceedings.
9.4. Referring to the defence evidence it was argued that the neighbours did not find any abnormality in the relations between the complainant and her husband. The relations were cordial and accused Vinay Dhawan used to take her to hospital for treatment. He operated a Cable Network and ran a Video Game Parlour on the ground floor of the house and lived on the first floor with the complainant..
10
10.I have heard learned Special PP for the State and learned defence counsels. With the assistance of learned counsels, I have perused the testimony of witnesses and documents on record.
11.Complainant Jyoti Dhawan (PW1) was cross examined at length over a period of almost one year by the ld. Defence counsels, before my ld. predecessor. She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW-1/DA, and it was tried to be highlighted that her testimony in the court is an improvement over her statements made to the police.
11.1. I am not impressed by this argument. Though, there are certain aspects which have not been stated in both the statements made to the police, yet her examination in Court is covered in one or the other of her statement made to the police. Further the cross examination, which was spread over almost ten dates of hearing, during almost a year is bound to bring out same or the other minor variations; it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. 11 I am supported on this view by the law laid down in Rammi @ Rameshwar VS State of Madhya Pradesh reported as 1999 (3) AD (Cri.) SC 652. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under :-
"When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny".12
12.I shall now discuss the evidence that has come up against the accused persons vis a vis charges framed against them. 12.1. As regards the charge for offence punishable under section 498A IPC, PW1 has deposed that her mother in law Darshana, Jeth Ram Prakash and husband taunted her for not having brought sufficient dowry. They had expected her to bring Rs.50,000/- and scooter. They continued taunting her and also gave beatings. Annoyed by the refusal of complainant's mother to arrange for more dowry they stopped her meeting with the complainant. Eventually, about one year after the marriage, the abovesaid three persons turned her out of the main house (hereinafter called Raghubir Nagar House) and lodged in a smaller house (hereinafter called as HMP House). She has further deposed that she was given meal twice a week and kept starved for rest of the period. I have read her complaint Ex.PW1/A where the abovesaid allegations find mention, though specifically not in the same language. Rather the complaint Ex.PW1/A finds mention of the name of sister in law Chanda as well, which name has not been 13 mentioned in the testimony as PW1. The arguments of Learned defence counsel that demand of Rs.50,000/- in cash, as well as, the scooter have not been mentioned in the complaint and the demand mentioned in the complaint is alternatively of cash or scooter. I find no merits in this arguments. Minor variations would not dislodge the prosecution case completely.
12.2 Testimony of PW1 is corroborated by the statement of her mother Devi Bai (PW2). She has also deposed that her daughter was taunted for not having brought a scooter. She has also deposed that her daughter was not allowed to see her. Brother of the complainant namely Sanjay Kumar (PW3) has also deposed that scooter and Rs.50,000/- cash were demanded. 12.3 In the light of the evidence as noticed above I am of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence against accused Vinay Dhawan, Ram Prakash and Darshana as regards the offence punishable under section 498A IPC. Since all the three of them acted in furtherance of their common intention I hold them guilty 14 for offence punishable under section 498A read with 34 IPC. Accused Chanda Rani deserves a benefit of doubt as she has not been specifically named in the statement of Jyoti Dhawan (PW1), though she has been mentioned by name in complaint Ex.PW1/A.
13.Jyoti Dhawan (PW1) has deposed that her dowry articles including the jewellery were recovered from the Raghubir Nagar house as well as the HMP House and were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F & Ex.PW1/G. HC Shamsher Singh (PW4) and SI Ghasi Ram (PW14) have also proved the abovesaid recoveries. The recoveries were at the instance of Darshana from the Raghubir Nagar house and at the instance of Vinay Dhawan from the HMP House, as deposed by the IO (PW-14). The aforesaid accused persons have thus committed offence punishable under section 406 read with 34 IPC. However, since a charge under section 406 IPC has not been framed, they are not held guilty for the abovesaid offence.
14.Jyoti Dhawan (PW1) has deposed that within one year after her 15 marriage she was shifted from the Raghubir Nagar House to the HMP House. Accused Vinay Dhawan had taken her to the HMP House and had lodged her there against her wishes. She was kept alone in the aforesaid house which was constructed on a 12 ½ sq. yds. plot. She was not given food/meals properly and was kept under fed. During her this period of illegal confinement, her nude photographs were taken and she was blackmailed by using those photographs. She was specifically told that in case she met anybody from her parental home, her photographs would be shown to them. She was also threatened that in case she disclosed her sufferings to any person, her nude photographs would be published.
14.1. To controvert the aforesaid evidence, accused persons have examined two defence witnesses. Vinod Kumar (DW1) lived opposite to the aforesaid house. He has deposed that accused Vinay Dhawan used to arrange for provisions and provide food to the complainant. He had not witnessed any acrimony between the couple. On cross examination, he deposed that he came to know 16 the accused in January 2000, when he had taken cable connection from him. During cross-examination he further deposed that complainant was very weak and used to be carried in lap by the accused Vinay Dhawan. On being further examined he admitted having attended the marriage of accused Vinay Dhawan and having known him prior to his marriage with the complainant. 14.2. The testimony of Vinod Kumar (DW1), therefore, cannot be accepted to be correct, as initially he deposed having met the accused in January 2000 and subsequently admitted having known him prior to his marriage (December 1995). He further corroborates the prosecution case to the effect that complainant was not in a position to move about herself.
14.3. Smt. Reena (DW2) has deposed that she shifted in the neighbourhood in February 2000 and remained friend of the complainant for about 2-3 years till 2003 or 2004. 14.4. The testimony of this witness is also absolutely of no 17 value, as the complainant had left the matrimonial home on 8.5.2000. The friendship till 2003 or 2004 is, therefore, only a figment of imagination of the witness. She is, therefore, a false witness.
14.5 From the evidence as discussed in sub paras above I hold that the complainant was kept confined in a one room house i.e. HMP House for a period of about three years between 1997-2000. She was not allowed to meet her parental family and they were not allowed to visit her. Her nude photographs had been taken and she was blackmailed by using the same and not permitted to leave the aforesaid house. She has herself deposed that accused Vinay Dhawan had taken her to the abovesaid house. By thus wrongfully confining the complainant in the HMP House and blackmailing her with her nude photographs, accused Vinay Dhawan intended to coerce her for mutual Divorce and to give up her claims for maintenance, Istridhan, Allumini etc. It can, therefore, be held that he had wrongfully confined the complainant for the purpose of extorting consent for mutual Divorce and 18 valuable security in the shape of giving up claim of maintenance, Istridhan and Allumini. Thus commiting an offence punishable under section 347 IPC. I, therefore, hold only accused Vinay Dhawan guilty for the offence punishable under section 347 IPC. Remaining three accused persons deserve benefit of doubt for this offence and I accordingly acquit them of charge for offence punishable under section 347 IPC.
15.As regards the charge for offence punishable under section 384 IPC, Jyoti Dhawan (PW1) has deposed that she was made to sign certain papers which were written in English, pertaining to Divorce. She has also deposed that she was made to sign on a document reflecting that her dowry article had been taken back and that she had been living with her mother for the last six months.
15.1. The petition under section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act and the statement of the parties recorded therein (Ex.PW1/DX) do record that they had been living separate w.e.f. 10.01.1998. The 19 averment regarding separate living is patently false and incorrect. Document (EX.PW1/D) records that on 8.5.2000, complainant had left the company of the accused Vinay Dhawan with her mother and brother. The document also bears the signatures of Vinay Dhawan. This leaves absolutely no dispute about the fact that prosecutrix and the accused Vinay Dhawan had made false averments in proceedings under section 13 -B Hindu Marriage Act. Though the statements were recorded in the Court and before a Judicial Officer, yet the coercion under which the complainant Jyoti Dhawan signed those statements can be gathered from the circumstances. Her nude photographs were a tool used by the accused Vinay Dhawan, to make her lead an inhuman life at the HMP House and then seek Divorce by thus procuring her consent and give up claim for maintenance, Istridhan & alimony. 15.2 By thus driving the complainant to make a statement in the Court during H.M.A. proceedings accused Vinay Dhawan caused her to deliver a valuable security, in the shape of a statement giving up her claims towards the permanent alimony, 20 Istridhan and maintenance. He thereby committed an offence as defined under section 383 IPC. I, therefore, hold Vinay Dhawan guilty for the offence punishable under section 384 IPC.
16.The argument of learned defence counsels that complaint Ex.PW1/A has been deposed to be scribed by SI Vinay Malik, whereas he was nowhere in the picture at that stage; does not cut ice with this Court. Devi Bai (PW2) has deposed that she had been making complaints at the PP-Raghubir Nagar regarding the well-being of her daughter, whom she was not being permitted to meet. SI Vinay Malik, was posted as Choki Incharge at the said PP. His advise or participation in initiating the present complaint may be a possibility. Moreover, it is a settled preposition of law that faulty investigation cannot be an escape route for the accused. The testimony of the prosecutrix PW1, would not be diluted by minor lapses on the part of Investigating Agency. I am supported in this view by the law laid down in State of U.P. vs Hari Mohan 2000 (VIII) AD (SC) 389.
21As regards not associating any public person in the recovery of nude photographs; the same would not vitiate the recovery. Evidence of police officials cannot be disbelieved merely because they are police officials.
17.As regards the charge for offence punishable under section 307 IPC, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to establish the aforesaid charge. Though, there is sufficient evidence that the complainant was reduced to a skeleton, when she was recovered from the HMP House, also the Complainant has deposed that the intention of the accused persons was to starve her to death; yet there is also evidence that accused Vinay Dhawan had been taking her to various hospitals for her treatment. Denying her food may be an evidence for offence punishable under section 498A IPC. I am, therefore, not convinced that the evidence is sufficient to hold, that the accused persons wanted to take her life. I, therefore, hold that the charge for offence punishable under section 307 IPC is not established.
17.1 As regards the charge for offence punishable under 22 section 120B IPC, I am again of the opinion that prosecution has failed to establish that the accused persons were acting in furtherance of criminal conspiracy. Prior meeting of mind or consensus to commit any particular illegal act is not established. Anyhow, since accused Vinay Dhawan, Ram Prakash and Darshana had all demanded dowry, the common intention to cause cruelty for demand of dowry is, however, established, thus making them liable to be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC.
18.For the aforesaid reasons I am of the opinion, that all the four accused persons are entitled to acquittal for the offence punishable under section 120 B IPC, 307 read with 120 B IPC. However, accused Vinay Dhawan, Ram Prakash and Darshana are held guilty for offence punishable under section 498A/34 IPC. Accused Vinay Dhawan is also held guilty for offence punishable under section 347 and 384 IPC. Accused Chanda Rani is acquitted of all the charges affording her benefit of doubt.
Announced in the open court (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
today i.e. 14.1.2008 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
23
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.9.2000 DATE ON WHICH RESERVED FOR ORDER : .03.01.08 DATE OF JUDGMENT :14.01. 08 DATE OF ORDER ON SENTENCE: 23.01.2008 Sessions case No. 308/06 FIR No. 472/2000 P.S.Rajouri Garden U/S. 498/406/506/509/384/347/120B/307 IPC and Section 6 Indecent Representation of Woman Act.
State Vs 1. Vinay Dhawan s/o late Sh. Kamal Kumar r/o H.No. B 362 (12 ½ yds.) HMP, Raghbir Nagar, Delhi Present add: B-2/191, Raghbir Nagar, Delhi.
2. Ram Prakash s/o Kamal Kumar.
R/o H.No. B -62, Raghbir Nagar, Delhi.
Present add: B-2/191, Raghbir Nagar, Delhi.
3. Smt. Darshana W/o late Sh. Kamal Kumar r/o B-2/191, Raghubir Nagar.
Delhi.
24ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Vide a separate judgment dated 14.01.2008 convicts Vinay Dhawan, Ram Prakash and Darshana have been held guilty for offence punishable under section 498-A read with 34 IPC. Convict Vinay Dhawan has also been convicted for offence punishable under section 347 and 384 IPC.
2. Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi, Special PP for the State has argued that the convicts have committed an extremely aggravated form of cruelty. The persons who were supposed to be protectors to a hapless young lady, turned out to be her tormentors. She was blackmailed by her own husband using her nude photographs. They, therefore, deserve maximum sentence provided under the statute.
3. Sh. Anupam Sharma, learned counsel on behalf of convicts has prayed for a lenient sentence. It is submitted that the convict Vinay Dhawan has already undergone imprisonment for 1 ½ year, Ram Prakash for six months and Darshana for one month. It is prayed that they be ordered to undergo the sentences already undergone. In the alternative an application under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has also been moved. 25
4. I have heard learned counsels. The fact that prosecutrix was brought to near starvation and reduced to merely 19 kgs in weight, speaks volume of the cruelty meted out to her. The fact that she was blackmailed by her own husband by using her nude photographs further aggravates the offence. In such circumstances taking a lenient view or affording them benefit of Probation of Offenders Act shall not be proper.
5. However, considering the fact that convict Darshana is an old lady, I am inclined to take a lenient view qua her. She is, therefore, awarded RI for a period of 1 ½ year and directed to deposit a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months, for the offence punishable under section 498 A read with 34 IPC.
5.1. Convicts Ram Prakash and Vinay Dhawan shall undergo RI for a period of 3 years and shall be liable to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period of six (6) months, for the offence punishable under section 498A read with 34 IPC.
5.2. Convict Vinay Dhawan shall also undergo RI for a period of two(2) years for the offence punishable under section 26 347 IPC, he shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs.10,000, in default of payment of fine to under go SI for 6 months.
5.3. Convict Vinay Dhawan shall also undergo RI for a period of two(2) years for the offence punishable under section 384 IPC, he shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs.10,000, in default of payment of fine to under go SI for 6 months.
6. All sentences shall run concurrently. Convicts shall also be entitled to benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. Copy of judgment and order on sentence be provided to the convicts free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
today i.e. 23.01.2008 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI.
27
Sessions case No. 308/06
FIR No. 472/2000
P.S.Rajouri Garden
U/S. 498/406/506/509/384/347/120B/307 IPC and Section 6 Indecent Representation of Woman Act.
23.1.08
Pr. Substituted APP for the State .
All three convicts on bail
with Sh. Pradeep Saini, Adv.
Vide separate order on sentence, considering the fact that convict Darshana is an old lady, I am inclined to take a lenient view qua her. She is, therefore, awarded RI for a period of 1 ½ year and directed to deposit a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months, for the offence punishable under section 498 A read with 34 IPC.
Convicts Ram Prakash and Vinay Dhawan shall undergo RI for a period of 3 years and shall be liable to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period of six (6) months, for the offence punishable under section 498A read with 34 IPC.
Convict Vinay Dhawan shall also undergo RI for a period of two(2) years for the offence punishable under section 347 IPC, he shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs.10,000, in default of payment of fine to under go SI for 6 months.Convict Vinay 28 Dhawan shall also undergo RI for a period of two(2) years for the offence punishable under section 384 IPC, he shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs.10,000, in default of payment of fine to under go SI for 6 months.
All sentences shall run concurrently. Convicts shall also be entitled to benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. Copy of judgment and order on sentence be provided to the convicts free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
At this stage , an application u/s 389 (3) Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the convicts to enable them to file an appeal before the Hon'ble High court of Delhi.
For the reasons stated in the application, sentence of each of the convicts is suspended for a period of one month to enable them to file an appeal .
Convicts are admitted to bail on their furnishing PB/SB of Rs. 20,000/-each with one surety of the like amount each.
Announced in the open court (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
today i.e. 23.01.2008 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI.