Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of FIR No. 332 dated 16.10.2000, Under Section 406/498-A, IPC, Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana. 2. The said FIR was lodged by Prem Lata, respondent No. 2, alleging that she was married to the petitioner on 17.3.1991 and on 28.1.1997 a male child was born out of the wedlock. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers of the petitioner, while accused No. 4 is mother and accused No. 5 is sister of the petitioner. Accused No. 6 is wife of accused No. 2 and accused No. 7 is elder brother of the petitioner. 3. It is alleged that at the time pf marriage certain articles were given to above persons jointly for being handed over to the complainant, but the said articles were not restored to the complainant. Further demands of dowry were made and on 26.9.1991, the complainant was turned out of the matrimonial home, though the complainant was rehabilitated with the intervention of the respectables on 13.1.1992 to be turned out again and to be rehabilitated again and it was finally on 15.9.2000 that the complainant was turned out of the matrimonial home. 4. In this petition for quashing the allegations of the complainant have been denied and a further counter version has been put forward. 5. On 29.3.2001, while issuing notice of motion, this Court directed that the appearance of the petitioner will be exempted till further orders. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint is based on false version. I am, however, unable to record a firm finding at this stage. 7. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the complainant had implicated apart from the petitioner, three brothers, one married sister, wife of a brother and mother of the petitioner, aged 75 years, though the marriage took place in the year 1991 and after about ten years of marriage, no other person than the petitioner is concerned about the affairs of the husband and wife. 8. 8. No doubt, other relations like married sister, brothers of the husband may not be concerned about the affairs of the marriage after several years and their prosecution may not, prima facie, be justified on the mere allegation that at the time of marriage, certain dowry articles were given to them for being carried to the matrimonial home, which allegation is, at times, made without any basis, but the said relations have not approached this Court. Counsel for the wife was unable to make any statement, whether the wife is interested in deleting their names to show her bona fides. Though Counsel for the petitioner made a prayer that proceedings against them may be quashed, even without their having approached the Court, no reason has been given why they have not approached the Court. I, therefore, do not pass any final order in this regard and the question has to be considered as and when the same may arise. 9. However, for the last one year, under the orders of this Court, personal appearance of the petitioner has been exempted and it was made clear that if his presence is required, he can be directed to appear. There is no change of circumstances and having regard to the fact the petitioner has to come from a distance the Trial Court can proceed even by continuing the said exemption, subject to the petitioner filing an application and undertaking to abide by such conditions, as the Trial Court may lay down to regulate the trial. The petition is disposed of accordingly.