CrMMO 9 of 2011 16.6.2011 Present: Mr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.2. On the pleadings of the parties in this case, I do not find that it is covered by the precedent of the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhan and another (2010) 7 SCC 667. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a number of submissions on the legality of the prosecution case and urges that the only reason that the present complaint has been filed is not only for harassing the husband of the complainant but all the family members including sister-in-laws who, according to the learned counsel, have no concern with the entire affair. Three of the petitioners in Cr.MP No. 386 of 2011 namely Asha, Poonam and Ravika are working in Chandigarh, Ropar and Ludhiana and the only reason for involving them is to subject them to coercive process of the Criminal law to harass them. On the submissions made at this stage all that I need say is that it will be open to the petitioners to urge all the points as raised in this petition before the learned trial Court when the case is taken up for framing of charge because it is that stage when the Court is to primfacie sift the evidence to ascertain whether any case is made out to frame charge against the accused or not. This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that three petitioners in Cr.MP No. 386 of 2011 shall be granted exemption by the trial Court for personal appearance and direct them to attend the Court only when necessary. Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. June 16, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge