IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No. 478 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 3.3.2009 Sajjan Kumar Versus State of Haryana. Present:- Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S.BEDI. (J) (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it has specifically been stated by Sukhbir Singh brother of the petitioner in his statement on oath before the trial Court that he had received a telephone call from Sunita deceased on the day she had died that her jeth and jethani were harassing her in connection with demand of dowry. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the statement of Sukhbir Singh, Annexure P-2. A perusal of the said statement indicates that there appear to be certain improvements which are apparent in cross-examination of the said witness indicating that an attempt is being made to rope in all the family members. Without expression of any opinion on merits, I am of the opinion that trial Court has given cogent reasons for dismissing the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C, keeping in view the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Micheal Machado and Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr, 2000(2) RCR 75. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. March 3, 2009 (M.M.S.Bedi) tripti Judge