Chandigarh17 minutes ago
- copy link
Golfer Jeev Milkha Singh. (file)
Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Chandigarh District Court, Dr. Aman Inder Singh, Flying Sikh Late. A complaint filed by Milkha Singh’s son and golfer Chiranjeev (Jeev) Milkha Singh has been quashed. In the case, Chiranjeev had demanded that the Sector 3 police station SHO be ordered to file criminal charges against Nitin Jain and a car dealer of Delhi for breach of trust (Section 406), cheating (Section 420) and criminal conspiracy (Section 129-B). ) to be ordered to register a case. The complaint was filed through Advocate Tarminder Singh under Section 156(3) of CrPC. The court has held that there is no merit in the complaint.
Chiranjeev said that in the year 2014, he had sold his Mercedes car to a person from Delhi. He did not get the car registered in his name. He came to know about this when he started getting traffic challans. According to the information, 63 traffic challans of 85 thousand rupees had come in his name from the traffic police. In such a situation, a demand was made to register a case against Nitin Jain of Delhi and the car dealer. Earlier, Chiranjeev Milkha Singh had also given a complaint to the SSP in the matter but no action was taken.
Chiranjeev Milkha Singh sold the car CHO1 AR 0725 to Nitin Jain of Delhi on 10th June, 2014. This vehicle was sold through a dealer in Delhi itself. According to the allegation, after buying the vehicle, Nitin Jain did not get the vehicle registered in his name for a long time and the challans of the vehicle kept coming in the name of Chiranjeev Milkha Singh. Let us inform that Chiranjeev had also received a notice from Rohini Court in Delhi regarding traffic challan, after seeing which he came to know about the ownership of the vehicle.
Jeev Milkha Singh did not comply with Motor Vehicle Act: Court
The Court mainly considered the issue whether Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC are made out in the matter. The court said that there is nothing in the complaint that the respondent (buyer and dealer) did not pay the cost of the vehicle. The only complaint is that the buyer and dealer did not get the vehicle registered. Nitin Jain replied that he was the sole buyer of the vehicle and the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the dealer.
The court said that under section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act, when a person sells his vehicle, he (complainant) has to take NOC from the registering authority from where it is registered. This NOC has to be done by filling form number 28 under section 48 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Thereafter, the transferor has to send the NOC to the registering authority where the vehicle is to be registered after transfer. After this, the buyer of the vehicle has to get the vehicle registered in his name by filing an application in the registering authority and putting his evidence.
The court said that in the present case, Chiranjeev Milkha Singh had not completed the necessary action under the Motor Vehicle Act. Not only this, the offense of section 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC is not made out in the case. There is no merit in the complaint filed. The court has said that on December 23, 2022, the case will be presented by the complainant on his own responsibility for preliminary evidence. The case has been asked to be registered as an IPC complaint.
civil case pending
At the same time, another civil petition has been sought to order Nitin Jain to transfer the car in his name and remove his name as honour. In this, RTO including Nitin Jain, car dealer Tejinder Singh have been made party by Chiranjeev Milkha Singh. The hearing in that case will be held on October 19.
so many traffic challans cut
According to Jeev Milkha, a total of 63 challans of Nitin Jain were cut. Of these, 43 were of overspeeding. There were 12 challans for red light jump. The 8 challans were for stop line violation and wrong parking, but the challans came to him as the car was in the name of Jeev Milkha Singh. Even the court sent a notice to him for not filling the challan.