Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Allamin S/O Ahmed Ali, R/O Village ... on 20 November, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. R.K. YADAV : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
Sessions Case No. 266/06
Date of Institution : 17.08.06
Date on which reserved for order : 06.11.07
Date of Delivery of order : 17.11.07
State Vs. 1. Allamin S/o Ahmed Ali, R/o Village Nisamn Sadia, P.S.
Muralganj, Distt. Bagrahat, Bangladesh.
2. Khaliq Khan S/o Hasmat Ali, R/o Village Khabdia,
Muralganj, Distt. Bagrahat, Bangladesh.
FIR No. 767/04
PS Preet Vihar
U/S 186/353/307/34 IPC, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and 14 of the
Foreigners Act.
J U D G E M E N T : To bring home guilt of an accused for an offence of attempt to murder, the prosecution is under an obligation to establish (1) that the accused did an act, (2) that it was done (i) with the intention, or (ii) with the knowledge (a) of causing death, (b) of causing such bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm was attempted to be caused; or (c) of causing bodily injury to a person and the injury intended to be inflicted would have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or (d) that the act if committed would have been so imminently dangerous that it would have in all probability caused death, or such bodily injury as is likely to caused death, and the act attempted was committed without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Following aggravating circumstances may be added to the above ingredients : (3) that the accused caused hurt to the person by the act 2 aforesaid. And if ingredient (3) is proved following further aggravating circumstances is admissible : (4) that the accused was then under sentence of imprisonment for life.
2. Whether prosecution has been able to establish aforesaid ingredients in the present controversy? For an answer, facts gain importance. As borne out of report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code), on 31.12.04 at about 5.45am, an information was received on wireless set by Sh. Ajay Chaudhary, Addl. DCP, (East), about commission of robbery at premises No. E110, Preet Vihar, Delhi. He proceeded for the spot along with his driver and operator. When he reached near Madhuban Chowk, Patparganj Road, Delhi, he spotted five or six boys coming from side of Madhuban Chowk. He became suspicious. He asked his driver and operator to check those boys. Driver stopped the vehicle. Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, working as wireless operator and Mahavir Singh, Constable, working as driver on vehicle of Addl. DCP, went to check those boys. Those boys ran towards, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, chased one of the boys, while Mahavir Singh, Constable, chased the other. Allamin, who was chased by Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, took out a dagger and attacked him. Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, saved himself and overpowered Allamin. The other boy, who was being chased by Mahavir Singh, Constable, entered in a multi storey building, which was under construction. Other boy managed his 3 escape good. When Mahavir, Constable, tried to overpower that boy, he took out a country made pistol and scared away Mahavir Singh, Constable. Extra force was called and combing operation was done. Khaliq Khan was overpowered, who had concealed himself underneath the staircase. One loaded country made pistol was recovered from his possession. Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, lodged a report, which became bedrock of the case. Investigation was taken up by Inspector Ram Sunder. Accused persons were arrested. Investigation culminated into a chargesheet against the accused persons.
3. Charge for offences punishable under sections 186, 353 and 307 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and 14 of the Foreigners Act was framed against the accused persons, besides separate charge framed under section 27 of the the Arms Act (in short the Act) against accused Allamin and charge framed under section 25 of the the Act against accused Khaliq Khan, to which charges accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To substantiate charges, prosecution has examined Virender Singh, Head Constable (PW1), Ajay Chaudhary, DCP (PW2), Pista Sharma, Head Constable (PW3), Ishrat Ali, Head Constable (PW4), Mahavir Singh, Constable (PW5), Harpal Singh, Inspector (PW6) and Ram Sunder Inspector (PW7) in the case.
4
5. Pista Sharma, Head Constable, was working as duty officer at police station, Preet Vihar, on 31.12.04. She recorded formal FIR and proved carbon copy of it as Ex.PW3/A. Harpal Singh, Inspector, was brought in witness box to prove that on 31.12.04, Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, was working as wireless operator with Addl. DCP, (East). Virender Singh, Head Constable, had reached spot and joined combing operation. He detailed that Khaliq Khan was sitting underneath staircase in District Centre, which was under construction. He was apprehended and one loaded country made pistol was recovered from his possession. Ram Sunder Inspector also reached spot on receipt of information. Accused Khaliq Khan was arrested in his presence. He took up investigation and recorded statement of Ishrat Ali, Head Constable. He had seized dagger from possession of accused Allamin and country made pistol and cartridge recovered from possession of accused Khaliq Khan. He had detailed investigative steps taken by him. Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, and Mahavir Singh, Constable, detailed facts to the effect that they saw 56 persons coming from Karkardooma Courts side. When they tried to check them, they started running. Accused Allamin attacked him with a dagger. Accused Khaliq Khan concealed himself in building of District Centre, which was under
construction. He was overpowered and from his possession a country made pistol and cartridges were recovered. Dagger was seized from Allamin. Ajay Chaudhary, DCP, also gives confirmation to facts testified by 5 Head Constable, Ishrat Ali, and Mahavir Singh, Constable.
6. In order to afford an opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against them, accused persons were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). Accused Allamin had denied all allegations against him. He projects that he was not spotted by Ajay Chaudhary, DCP, in morning hours of 31.12.04. According to him, he was not checked by Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, nor he attacked him with a dagger. He denied that Khaliq Khan was with him at that time. He further denied that Khaliq Khan had hidden himself in the District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, which was under construction. He had further denied that Khaliq Khan was arrested from there and from his possession a country made pistol and cartridge were recovered. Accused Khaliq Khan had also adopted posture of denial in his statement, recorded under section 313 of the Code. According to him, he was framed and country made pistol and cartridge were planted on him. He claims himself to be innocent. No evidence was led by accused persons in their defence.
7. Arguments were heard at the bar. Sh. R.K. Pandey, ld. Prosecutor, had presented facts on behalf of the State. Sh. Dasa Ram and Pradeep Tyagi, Advocates, had advanced arguments on behalf of the defence. I have given my careful considerations to arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows : 6
8. Defence has not been able to impeach credit of testimony of Virender Singh, Head Constable, Ajay Chaudhary, DCP, Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, Mahavir Singh, Constable and Ram Sunder, Inspector on the count that they were biased against accused Allamin and Khaliq Khan. No efforts were made to castigate facts testified by these witnesses on the count that they were inimical qua accused persons or they entered the witness box on receipt of some extraneous considerations. When facts testified by aforesaid police officials were scrutinized, no inherent infirmity or defect surfaced over the record. Demeanour of witnesses was found to be satisfactory and in consonance with ordinary human behaviour. Facts testified by witnesses, referred above, were found to be reliable and probable. Consequently, I am of the considered opinion that aforesaid police officials are worthy of credence and their depositions can well be considered in adjudicating accountability of the accused persons.
9. Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, who is author of FIR, unfolds that on 31.12.04, he was working as wireless operator with Addl. DCP, (East), namely, Sh. Ajay Chaudhary. On that day at about 5.30am, Ajay Chaudhary proceeded from his house for Madhuban Chowk, since a call was received about robbery at Preet Vihar, Delhi. At about 6.30am, they reached near Madhuban Chowk. Sh. Chaudhary got the vehicle stopped, when 56 persons were seen coming from side of Karkardooma Courts. On being suspicious, Sh. Chaudhary asked them to check those persons.
7 He along with driver, namely, Mahavir Singh, alighted the vehicle. As soon as, those persons saw them, they started running towards District Centre. They chased them. Accused Allamin was having a knife in his hands. He attacked him with that knife. He managed to escape his attack. He overpowered Allamin. Accused Khaliq Khan was having a country made pistol in his hands, pointed it towards Constable Mahavir Singh, and threatened him that he would fire a shot on him. Accused Khaliq Khan concealed himself in District Centre. Additional force was summoned at the spot. Ram Sunder, Inspector and Virender, Head Constable, also reached spot. Area was cordoned. Khaliq Khan was apprehended from underneath staircase of building under construction. Country made pistol was recovered from his possession, which was found loaded. He made his statement Ex.PW4/A, which was bearing his signature at point 'A'. Sketch of knife was prepared, which is Ex.PW1/B. It was converted into a cloth parcel, sealed with seal of RS and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B. Sketch of country made pistol and cartridge recovered out of it was prepared, which is Ex.PW1/A. Country made pistol and cartridge were converted into a cloth parcel, sealed with seal of RS and taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PW1/C. He identified country made pistol Ex.P1 and cartridges Ex.P2 as the same, which were recovered from possession of accused Khaliq Khan. He had identified dagger Ex.P3 as the same, which was recovered from possession of accused Allamin.
8
10. Mahavir Singh, Constable, gives confirmation to facts testified by Ishrat Ali, Head Constable. He tells that on 31.12.04, he was working as driver with Addl. DCP, (East), namely, Ajay Chaudhary. On that day, Sh. Chaudhary proceeded from his house at about 5.30am, since a call of robbery was received. When they reached near Madhuban Chowk around 6am, five or six persons were spotted coming from side of Karkardooma Courts. He stopped the vehicle. On seeing them, offenders ran towards District Centre. Accused Allamin was having a dagger in his hands, while accused Khaliq Khan was having a country made pistol. Accused Allamin tried to attack and Khaliq Khan threatened him with the country made pistol. Allamin was overpowered by Ishrat Ali, Head Constable. Khaliq Khan ran inside building under construction and concealed himself. Additional force was summoned and area was cordoned. Khaliq Khan was found hidden in staircase of the building under construction. Country made pistol was recovered from his possession, which was found loaded. These weapons were seized. He identified country made pistol Ex.P1, cartridge Ex.P2 as the same, which were recovered from possession of Khaliq Khan and dagger Ex.P3, which was recovered from possession of accused Allamin. Ajay Chaudhary, DCP, substantiates facts testified by aforesaid two witnesses. He confirms that on hearing call regarding robbery at premises No. E110, Preet Vihar, Delhi, he proceeded for the spot. When they reached Madhuban Chowk, he spotted four or five persons coming in 9 a group and became suspicious. He asked operator and driver to check those boys. The boys started running. They were chased and one of the offender was having a knife, who made an assault on driver, Mahavir Singh. The other offender concealed himself in a building under construction. He gave message to SHO and other police officers to reach at the spot. Thereafter that offender was arrested from there. One country made pistol was recovered from his possession.
11. The defence had tried to assert that facts testified by these three witnesses are unworthy of credence, since they contradicts each other on material points. Sh. Tyagi argued that Ajay Chaudhary, DCP, projects that an assault was made on constable Mahavir Singh by accused Allamin. According to him, this witness was contradicted by Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, who claims that Allamin had tried to attack him with a knife. When facts detailed by these three witnesses were perused, it came to light that a rapid incident occurred in which an attempt was made by Allamin on the life of Ishrat Ali, Head Constable. When incident under reference occurred, Ajay Chaudhary, DCP was present near his vehicle, while Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, and Mahavir Singh, Constable, were chasing Allamin and Khaliq Khan respectively, while other offenders were running in different directions. In that situation, Allamin attacked Ishrat Ali with a dagger, which was in his hands. Ajay Chaudhary, DCP, committed an error of observation and mistook that it was Mahavir singh, Constable, 10 who was attacked by Allamin. Such error of observation may occur when offence is committed rapidly. Therefore, discrepancy highlighted by Sh. Tyagi, Advocate, is found to be on mere matter of detail. Even otherwise, Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, made this fact clear in first information report, wherein it was asserted by him that Allamin had made murderous assault on him with a dagger. This statement was made by Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, soon after the incident. Ex.PW4/A corroborates his testimony. Mahavir Singh, Constable, nowhere claims that assault was made on him by accused Allamin. In view of these circumstances, it is concluded that discrepancy highlighted by Sh. Tyagi, Advocate, is not such which may persuade the Court to discredit testimony of Ajay Chaudhary, DCP, from consideration of guilt of accused persons or to reject the story put forward by the prosecution.
12. Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, declares that when he was chasing accused Allamin, he attacked him with a dagger, which was in his hands. He escaped attack and overpowered him. Dagger Ex.P3 was snatched from hands of accused Allamin. Sketch Ex.PW1/B was perused and it came to light that this dagger was having a blade of 21cm long. This dagger was used as a weapon of offence, when accused Allamin attacked Ishrat Ali, Head Constable. To ascertain intention of accused Allamin in attempting on life of Ishrat Ali, surrounding circumstances are to be considered. In assessing a man's intention, nature of weapon used, part of 11 body on which blow is given, force of blow and its number are some of the factors, which assume importance. Here in the case, Allamin used dagger Ex.P3 as a weapon of offence, whose blade is 21cm long. Admittedly, dagger Ex.P3 is a deadly weapon and can prove lethal, if attack is made on vital part of the body. While Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, was attempting to overpower Allamin, he attacked him with dagger Ex.P3, but former had an escape. All these circumstances are such which may persuade an ordinary prudent man that Allamin had an intention to attempt on the life of his victim, in a bid to escape from arrest. Even otherwise, Allamin had knowledge to the effect that in case he would cause injuries on the person of Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, with dagger Ex.P3, then those injuries would have been imminently dangerous that it must in all probabilities would cause death or such bodily injuries as was likely to cause death. Therefore, aforesaid circumstances persuade me to conclude that prosecution has been able to establish that accused Allamin made an attempt on the life of Ishrat Ali, Head Constable. Facts unfolded by Mahavir Singh, Constable, give confirmation to events projected by Ishrat Ali, Head Constable. Consequently, it is concluded that prosecution has been able to establish all ingredients for offence of attempt to murder against the accused Allamin.
13. Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, had testified that accused Khaliq Khan was chased by Mahavir Singh, Constable. At that time, accused Khaliq Khan 12 was having a country made pistol in his hands. He pointed out it towards Mahavir Singh, Constable, and threatened him at the point of country made pistol Ex.P1. He builds edifice of prosecution, when he testified that Khaliq Khan concealed himself in a building under construction. Additional force was summoned, area was cordoned and thereafter Khaliq Khan was arrested from underneath staircase of that building. Country made pistol Ex.P1 was snatched from his hands, which was found loaded at that time. Facts projected by Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, are substantiated by Mahavir Singh, Constable. Mahavir Singh, Constable, tells that accused Khaliq Khan was having a country made pistol, pointed it towards him and threatened him to kill. He concealed himself in a building under construction. Local police was called and area was cordoned. With the help of Ram Sunder SI and Virender, Head Constable, Khaliq Khan was overpowered from underneath staircase, where he had concealed himself. Country made pistol, which was loaded, recovered from his possession. On these counts, Virender Singh, Head Constable, Ajay Chaudhary DCP and Ram Sunder, Inspector substantiate events unfolded by Mahavir Singh, Constable. Therefore, it stands crystallized that Khaliq Khan was found in possession of country made pistol Ex.P1, which was loaded. He used that country made pistol to resist his lawful arrest by Mahavir Singh, Constable. Therefore, all ingredients for offence punishable under section 28 of the the Act has been substantiated against accused Khaliq Khan.
13 Accused Khaliq Khan was charged for offences punishable under sections 307 of the Penal Code and 25 of the Act. He had taken every steps to defend himself. No prejudice would be caused to him, in case accused Khaliq Khan is held accountable for offence punishable under section 28 of the Act. Omission to frame charge under section 28 of the Act had not resulted into miscarriage of justice, since Khaliq Khan had taken every steps to defend himself for that offence. Consequently, it is concluded that accused Khaliq Khan can be held accountable for offence punishable under section 28 of the Act, which has been proved against him to the hilt.
14. As testified by Harpal Singh, Inspector; Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, was working as wireless operator with Addl. DCP, namely, Ajay Chaudhary, on 31.12.04. Sh. Ajay Chaudhary, DCP, had confirmed these facts. Ishrat Ali had also testified that he was working as wireless operator with Sh. Chaudhary on the date of incident. Mahavir Singh, Constable, was working as driver with Sh. Chaudhary that day. Sh. Chaudhary directed them to check the offenders, who were seen coming in a group from Karkardooma Courts side. When they proceeded to check Allamin and Khaliq Khan, besides their other associates, offenders started running away. At that time, Allamin attempted on life of Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, with a view to prevent and deter him from effecting his arrest. Khaliq Khan took him on point of his country made pistol and threatened Mahavir Singh, Constable, of his death. Thus, it is evident that Allamin and Khaliq Khan had tried to 14 prevent and deter the aforesaid two police officers from discharge of their duties as such public servants. Complaint as contemplated by provisions of section 195 of the Code was filed by Ajay Chaudhary, DCP, who had proved it as Ex.PW2/A. All ingredients for offence punishable under section 186 of the Penal Code has been substantiated against accused Allamin and Khaliq Khan.
15. It has been testified by Ishrat Ali that accused Allamin assaulted him with his dagger Ex.P3. Mahavir Singh, Constable, deposed that accused Khaliq Khan raised his country made pistol towards him and threatened him to kill. Thus, it is evident that these two accused persons made Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, and Mahavir Singh, Constable, to move away from posture in which they were present, when these two accused persons assaulted or raised country made pistol over them. Consequently, it has emerged over record that accused Allamin and Khaliq Khan caused motion to Head Constable Ishrat Ali and Constable Mahavir Singh. It is, therefore, concluded that these two accused persons had used force against Mahavir Singh, Constable and Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, with intent to prevent and deter them from discharge of their duties as such public servants. Offence punishable under section 353 of the Penal Code has been established against them.
16. As testified by Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, which facts are supported by Mahavir Singh, Constable, and Ajay Chaudhary, DCP, dagger Ex.P3 was 15 recovered from possession of accused Allamin. Ram Sunder, Inspector, had prepared sketch of said dagger, which is Ex.PW1/B. Blade of the dagger is 21cm long. It is evident that possession of dagger, like present one, is regulated by notification dated 10.05.1978, which has been issued under section 4 of the Act. Allamin had not explained that he possessed dagger Ex.P3 after obtaining licence in that regard. Therefore, by his possessing dagger Ex.P3, he has fallen within mischief of provision of section 25 of the Act. He is accordingly, found accountable for the said offence.
17. Accused Khaliq Khan was found in possession of country made pistol Ex.P1 and cartridges Ex.P2. For his prosecution for offences punishable under section 25 of the Act, it was expedient to accord sanction as contemplated by section 39 of the Act. Said sanction was accorded by Kanan Jagdeshan, Addl. DCP on 14.12.06. Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of offence on 28.02.05, on which date no sanction to prosecute Allamin for offence punishable under section 25 of the Act was accorded. Therefore, his trial for offence punishable under section 25 of the Act is vitiated. He cannot be held accountable for offence punishable under section 25 of the Act.
18. Though accused persons are charged for offence punishable under section 14 of the Foreigners Act, yet no evidence worth name has been brought over record to establish the charge for said offence. It is evident 16 that there is a complete vacuum of evidence to substantiate that charge. Hence, it is concluded that prosecution has not been able to prove count of charge for offence punishable under section 14 of the Foreigners Act.
19. In view of foregoing discussions, it is evident that prosecution has been able to establish its case against accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Accused persons have failed to discredit prosecution story. Evidence brought over record is sufficient to adjudge their accountability. Consequently, accused Allamin is held guilty for offence punishable under section 186, 353 and 307 of the Penal Code, besides 25 of the Act. Khaliq Khan is also held guilty and convicted for offences punishable under sections 186 and 353 of the Penal Code, besides 28 of the Act. However, they are acquitted of charge for offence punishable under section 14 of the Foreigners Act.
Announced in the Open Court (Dr. R.K. Yadav) On this 17th day of November, 2007. Additional Sessions Judge :
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
17 IN THE COURT OF DR. R.K. YADAV : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :Sessions Case No. 266/06
State Vs. 1. Allamin S/o Ahmed Ali, R/o Village Nisamn Sadia, P.S. Muralganj, Distt. Bagrahat, Bangladesh.
2. Khaliq Khan S/o Hasmat Ali, R/o Village Khabdia, Muralganj, Distt. Bagrahat, Bangladesh.FIR No. 767/04
PS Preet Vihar U/S 186/353/307 IPC, 25 and 28 of the Arms Act.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE : I have heard the convict persons on the point of sentence. Sh. Dasa Ram, Advocate, presents that convict Khaliq Khan is a young man, aged about 28 years. He further presents that he is having a clean record, without any criminal history. According to him, Khaliq Khan is only earning hand to support his family. He claims leniency on his behalf.
2. Sh. Pradeep Tyagi, Advocate, submits that convict Allamin is a young man, aged about 21 years. He argued that he is only bread earner to support his ailing sister. According to him, sister of Allamin has to undergo surgery, since she is suffering from kidney problem. He seeks leniency on his behalf too.
3. On 31.12.04, Ajay Chaudhary, Addl. DCP, (East), was proceeding to spot, on hearing an information on wireless set about commission of robbery at premises No. E110, Preet Vihar, Delhi. When he reached at Madhuban Chowk, he spotted four or five boys coming in a group from Karkardooma Courts side. He became suspicious. He got their vehicle stopped and directed Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, and Mahavir Singh, Constable, to check those boys. Offenders started running. Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, was chasing Allamin, while Mahavir 18 Singh, Constable, was chasing Khaliq Khan. Khaliq Khan scared Mahavir Singh, Constable, on the point of his country made pistol and prevented him from effecting his arrest. He concealed himself in a building under construction. Additional force was summoned and Khaliq Khan was overpowered from there. A loaded country made pistol was recovered from his possession. On the other hand, when Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, tried to overpower Allamin, he attacked him with a dagger having a blade of 21 cm long. Ishrat Ali, Head Constable, escaped attack and overpowered Allamin. Thus, it is emerging over record that an alarming offence was committed by these two convict persons. I do not find it to be a case where convict persons should be enlarged on probation or be dealt with leniency for awarding punishment to them. However, mitigating circumstances surrounding them persuade me to tilt the scale in their favour. Taking into account all these facts, convict Allamin is, hereby, sentenced to RI for one month for an offence punishable under section 186 of the Penal Code. He is further sentenced to undergo RI for three months for offence punishable under section 353 of the Penal Code. He is sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ for offence punishable under section 307 of the Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he would further undergo RI for three months. He is also sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ for offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, he would further undergo RI for one month. All substantive sentences awarded to convict Allamin shall run concurrently.
4. Convict Khaliq Khan is sentenced to RI for one month for offence punishable under section 186 of the Penal Code. He is also sentenced to undergo RI for 19 three months for offence punishable under section 353 of the Penal Code. He is sentenced to undergo RI for two and half years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ for offence punishable under section 28 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, he would further undergo RI for one month. All substantive sentences awarded to convict Khaliq Khan shall run concurrently.
5. Convict persons shall get benefit of period already undergone in detention during investigation and trial of the case. A copy of judgement and order on sentence be supplied free of cost to convict persons.
Announced in the Open Court (Dr. R.K. Yadav) On this 20th day of November, 2007. Additional Sessions Judge :
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.