KAPIL DEV Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to the effect that in case any FIR is lodged against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No.3, he may be granted sufficient time to approach the appropriate court of law to safeguard his interest.

(2.) Mr. Maini, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had worked with respondent No.3 for more than 1 years as Area Business Executive at Ludhiana and after he got a better job opportunity in some other reputed Pharmaceutical Company, he left the service of respondent No.3. He then submits that the petitioner had been writing letters to respondent No.3 for relieving him but to no effect. The petitioner then received a telephonic call from the office of respondent No.2 (Superintendent of Police, City-I, Ludhiana) that a complaint has been lodged against him with regard to some misappropriation of consignment of certain drugs. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is apprehending his false involvement in the said complaint whereas he has nothing to do with it. The learned counsel then submits that respondent No.3 is also pressurising the petitioner to indemnify the loss of the company or they would lodge a complaint against him at Hyderabad. Hence this petition.

(3.) In my view no interference is called for at this stage. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed.