DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate appears on behalf of the complainant and files Vakalatnama which is taken on record.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition under Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to him in FIR No.175 dtd. 14/8/2022 under Ss. 406, 408, 420, 120-B of the IPC registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that present case has been lodged falsely against the petitioner. The petitioner has nothing to do with the offence. Even as per the allegation, the present dispute relates to non-payment of dues by a Company of which the petitioner is neither a Director nor authorized representative. The petitioner was employed as an Accountant and has no role in the management of the Company. Furthermore, the matter was settled by way of compromise on 3/11/2020 which was also between the complainant and co-accused Gaurav Aggarwal. The present dispute pertains to breach of promise of compromise being a civil dispute. A civil dispute is tried to be given the colour of criminal wrong doing. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and thus no custodial interrogation is required.