New Delhi: A Delhi High Court lawyer with nearly three decades of practice recently received a police notice for an alleged violation of the Excise Act committed in a car he no longer owns.
Named in an FIR registered for illegally transporting liquor, the lawyer—Shankar Jha—found himself in the dock because the vehicle used to do the crime continues to be in his name, even though he had sold it two-and-a-half years ago to a Gurgaon-based service provider, named Spinny, that deals in sale-and-purchase of second-hand cars.
Faced with a possible arrest, Jha approached the Delhi HC with two requests: to protect him from any criminal prosecution, and to strengthen the regulatory framework that imposes no liability on those in the business of selling-and-purchasing second-hand vehicles.
He has sought a direction to frame a detailed policy to regulate this business under the Motor Vehicles Act, the law governing the registration of vehicles.
Jha has claimed that in the absence of adequate policy and regulations, companies such as Spinny are misusing their dominant position. He has sought an enquiry into their working modalities so that citizens who deal with them do not get harassed by legal proceedings, which may arise due to the company’s negligence or failure to take steps to transfer the ownership of the car once it is sold to a purchaser.
Jha’s petition was heard on 19 June by a vacation bench of the Delhi HC.
Justice Madhu Jain’s bench took note of his grievance and issued notices to the Centre, to the Delhi Police Commissioner, the Station House Officer of Wazirabad Police Station that has registered the Excise Act FIR against the lawyer, the transport officer of Janakpuri authority where the car in question was registered, and Spinny that purchased Jha’s car in 2023 and promised to complete all the paperwork to reflect the change in the vehicle’s ownership.
Jha has added the Delhi Police as a respondent in his case because in January this year he had apprised them about the sale of his car to Spinny and also informed them about the latter’s failure to transfer the ownership despite multiple reminders and requests. Similarly, he had intimated the Delhi transport department as well. However, none of them took action on his claim and complaint.
Additionally, the court also ordered that no coercive step shall be taken against Jha in connection with the FIR involving the vehicle.
Jha’s petition in the HC describes the FIR against him as an illustration of the “darker side of the deep-rooted illegalities being carried out” by Spinny and other service providers dealing in second-hand cars.
And inaction on the part of the government authorities such as the transport department and police to regulate them causes continuous risks of traffic challans, third-party claims, insurance disputes, criminal investigations, police inquiries, arrests and prosecutions, says the petitioner.
This impacts the fundamental rights of citizens who might end up facing prosecution for no fault of theirs, he has said.
Also Read: Second-hand car dealers in India now have billion-dollar valuations, thanks to Covid
Multiple reminders to car resale platform
According to Jha, when he sold his car to Spinny in December 2023, he executed all necessary statutory documents including Form-29 under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, handed over all original documents including Registration Certificate (RC), keys and possession of the vehicle on the same date. Form-29 of MV Act notifies the regional transport office about the transfer of ownership of a vehicle upon its sale.
Spinny undertook to provide end-to-end services including completion of all post-sale statutory formalities, particularly transferring ownership in RC with the concerned Regional Transport Office (RTO).
When Jha enquired about the transfer of the car’s RC from Spinny, he was told the vehicle was in “safe hands” and that necessary steps for the transfer were being taken.
Between 27 Feb, 2024 and 5 March 2025, Jha sent multiple WhatsApp messages to Spinny, asking it for the status of the RC transfer. In response, Jha was “unequivocally assured” that Spinny was actively working to get the ownership transferred at the earliest. The lawyer has annexed his communication with the petition.
Eventually, in January this year, Jha sent a notice to Spinny for its failure to transfer the ownership. The notice was sent through mail and a copy was marked to the Delhi Police Commissioner as well as the Janakpuri RTO.
Jha received a response from the Police Commissioner’s office, which stated his complaint had been marked to the Delhi Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, for further necessary action.
Spinny too responded to Jha, saying his car was already sold through its dealer auction channel to M/s Unity Umpire Cars, and that they were not in the possession of the vehicle.
This was the first time that Spinny made this claim, which, Jha says, was contrary to its earlier stand and assurance that the car was in the service provider’s “safe hands”.
Jha was surprised when he got police notice, through WhatsApp, on 9 June, asking him to be present at the Wazirabad police station with a copy of the car’s RC, insurance and pollution certificate, copy of the vehicle’s sale/transfer documents, and his identity and address proof. He immediately responded to tell them that he was no longer in possession of the vehicle.
He got another notice on 12 June, once again asking him to produce the documents before the police station, prompting him to approach the HC for protection.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: From used-car sites to Red Fort: White i20 and its long-winded route from Faridabad to Old Delhi