IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-44925 of 2007 Date of decision:-12.5.2008. Vikram Singh ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Haryana ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navneet Singh, AAG, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL J. The petitioner in the present case is accused in FIR No. 279 dated 1.8.2007, under Sections 420, 411, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at police station City Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. Brief facts are that the petitioner purchased a motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor from one Sohan Lal on 24.1.2007 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. As per the affidavit of Sohan Lal the petitioner paid sum of Rs. 28,000/- and balance Rs. 2000/- was to be paid after the registration certificate was to be handed over to him. It has further come on record that the insurance of motor cycle was got done from Reliance General Insurance in the name of the petitioner with the delivery challan issued by Rohit Automobiles, Saharanpur Road, Yamuna Nagar which was found to be forged. Without even getting the documents of the vehicle, the petitioner sold the same immediately to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 34,000/- and handed over the possession thereof. The complaint came to be filed as the petitioner failed to deliver the documents thereof. Criminal Misc. No.44925-M of 2007 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and he had no role in the fabrication of the record as he was a bona fide purchaser. However I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a person dealing in sale and purchase of motor vehicles. Repeated transaction of sale and purchase between number of persons without there being registration certificate and the insurance of the vehicle having been issued by fabricating the delivery challan. However,without recording any finding on merits in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to see as to whether the petitioner and other persons are involved in buying, selling of stolen vehicles and getting these registered with forged documents. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is dismissed. May 12, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) ritu-II JUDGE