Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR No. 168 dated September 11, 1999 registered at Police Station Agroha under Sections 498-A, 406, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 6 and 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 . 2. The complaint has been attached with the petition as Annexure P-3. The present petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos. 4 and 5 in the complaint. 3. Complainant, Smt. Shakuntla, has stated that she was married to accused No. 1, i.e., Krishan Kumar on May 24, 1994 at village Chuli Deswalian according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two male children were born out of this wedlock during the years 1995 and 1997. It has been further stated in the complaint that the parents of the complainant spent Rs. 3,00,000/- on the marriage of the complainant and gave sufficient dowry articles, i.e., stridhan. The father of the complainant gave Rs. 51,000/- as tikka and one gold kara worth Rs. 12,000/- to accused No. 1, i.e., Krishan Kumar. A huge amount was spent on suits, loi etc. at the time of Goud ceremony as 15 persons came from the accused side. It has been further alleged that the complainants father also gave a motor-cycle make Rajdoot worth Rs. 27,500/- Rs. 61,000/- in cash; Refrigerator worth Rs. 8,500/- and several other articles. It has been further stated in the complaint that the father of the complainant has spent huge amount on the birth of two children. The accused were not satisfied with this amount and demanded Rs. 50,000/- in cash and more household articles from the complainant and the complainants parents. The articles which were given at the time of marriage and before the marriage, were entrusted to accused No. 1, i.e., Krishan Kumar and accused No. 2, i.e., Ishwar Singh, father of Krishan Kumar. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents available on the record. 5. Learned counsel for the State Mr. The articles which were given at the time of marriage and before the marriage, were entrusted to accused No. 1, i.e., Krishan Kumar and accused No. 2, i.e., Ishwar Singh, father of Krishan Kumar. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents available on the record. 5. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has stated that the dowry articles were entrusted to accused No. 1, i.e., Krishan Kumar and accused No. 2, Ishwar Singh, father of Krishan Kumar, who dishonestly misappropriated these articles in con- nivance with the main accused, i.e., Smt. Sarbati wife of Ishwar Singh, accused No. 3, Saroj, petitioner No. 2, and Guddi, petitioner No. 1 (accused Nos. 4 and 5 in the complaint). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that petitioner No. 1 Saroj was married to Subhash Chander son of Inder Singh resident of village Julani on March 11, 1984 and is having one daughter aged about 12 years and two sons aged about 10 years and 8 years. She, since her marriage, is staying with her in-laws, i.e., in village Julani, tehsil and district Jind. He has further stated that petitioner No. 2, i.e., Guddi was married to one Attar Singh son of Dharam Singh, resident of village Ludas, tehsil and district Hissar on April 30, 1980 and is havign three children. The eldest son of petitioner No. 2 is about 18 years, younger to him is about 17 years and the youngest is aged about 15 years. She is living with her husband Attar Singh in village Ludas, district Hissar since the date of her marriage. 7. Going through the complaint, Annexure P-3, the allegation levelled against accused Nos. 1 and 2 in para 3 of the complaint is that accused Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., husband and mother- in-law of the complainant dishonestly misappropriated the property along with respondent-accused Nos. 4 and 5. No where in the complaint, it has been specifically stated that the dowry articles were further entrusted to respondent-accused Nos. 4 and 5. 8. 1 and 2 in para 3 of the complaint is that accused Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., husband and mother- in-law of the complainant dishonestly misappropriated the property along with respondent-accused Nos. 4 and 5. No where in the complaint, it has been specifically stated that the dowry articles were further entrusted to respondent-accused Nos. 4 and 5. 8. Learned counsel for the peti- tioners has drawn my attention to Ramandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2001 (4) RCR (Cri) 395 , wherein this Court has held that the allegations against some of the accused were vague and the accused did not have any concern with the demand of dowry or cruelty. First Information Report was quashed in that case. 9. In the petition in hand, the allegations are not only vague, but even there is no entrustment of the dowry articles to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Common intention cannot also be there as nowhere in the complaint, it is mentioned that as to when there was a meeting of mind between accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and accused Nos. 4 and 5 (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein). 10. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. First Information Report No. 168 dated September 11, 1999 qua the peti- tioners i.e., accused No. 4 Saroj wife of Subhash Chander son of Inder Singh and accused No. 5, Guddi wife of Attar Singh son of Dharam Singh is quashed. Rest of the accused shall face trial.