IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.283 of 2008 Date of Decision 11.01.2010 Ashok Kumar ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Punjab and another ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Santosh Tripathi, Advocate, for Mr.Yogesh Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, D.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1-State of Punjab. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not related to any of the parties i.e. husband or in laws of the deceased Monika. It has also been contended that even according to the prosecution version, the petitioner is running a marriage bureau and arranged the matrimonial alliance of the deceased with petitioner's co-accused Sonu Mittal, as such, he had nothing to do with act of cruelty or the articles of dowry. It has been further contended that as per FIR, the petitioner had also been calling the complainant (father of the deceased) for making payment of Rs.40,000/- to him, besides Rs.25,000/- as already paid by him for he having arranged marriage between them. Having perused the record and hearing the arguments, it transpires that the petitioner was running a marriage bureau and he was the party to the settlement between them. It is still to be seen at the time of evidence whether any payment of dowry was made by him in connivance with the accused, therefore, it would be difficult to say at this stage that he has not committed any offence. Anyway, keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the fact that he is not related to none of the parties, it would be in the fitness of things to exempt his personal presence before the trial Court till the final disposal of the case. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of accordingly. However, the trial Court would be at liberty to call the petitioner on any material date when his presence is required. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 11.01.2010 mamta-II