Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition for quashing has been filed originally by Labh Singh. Subsequently, Pyari Devi and Bhirawan Bai were added as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. 2. In the FIR, Annexure P-4, it is alleged that the complainant was married to Labh Chander about five years ago and prior to the FIR dated 16.9.1993, she was tortured for dowry and an attempt was made to kill her also. Inspite of all efforts, she was not accepted in the matrimonial home and was turned out of the matrimonial home along with her son aged 4 years. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that allegations in the FIR are vague as no date or time of harassment has been given. 4. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner Labh Singh had filed a divorce petition alleging desertion and cruelty and after considering the evidence, his case was rejected by the trial Court and FAO No. 142-M of 1997 filed in this Court was dismissed on 13.10.2004 after consideration on merits. It was held that the wife had not gone out of the matrimonial home of her own and it was the petitioner, who had deserted the wife. 5. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to several decisions. 6. As far as husband and mother-in-law are concerned, they cannot be absolved of the charge only on the ground that no particular time of incident was mentioned. Allegations of the complainant cannot be rejected even if there is a disputed version at this stage. No ground is made out for quashing. However, it is pointed out that Bhirawan Bai is 70 years of age and she will face great hardship in coming to the Court on every date of hearing. In view of this special feature, she will be allowed by the trial Court to appear through counsel on such conditions as may be laid down by the trial Court on an application to be filed by the said petitioner. 7. As far as case of Smt. Pyari Devi, sister-in-law of the complainant, is concerned, it is stated that she is already married and living separately and she had nothing to do with the family affairs of the complaintant and her husband. 7. As far as case of Smt. Pyari Devi, sister-in-law of the complainant, is concerned, it is stated that she is already married and living separately and she had nothing to do with the family affairs of the complaintant and her husband. Case of a married sister, living separately, stands on different footing and allegations against her ought not to be taken at the face value in view of law laid down in Jaswinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) RCR 699, Gurmeet Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another, 1993(1) RCR 354, Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab etc., 2000(3) (sic) 742, Inderjit Singh and others v. Smt. Sushma Rani, 1988(1) RCR 527, Jasbir Kaur and another v. State of Haryana and another, 1990(2) RCR 243, Radha Rani v. Parmod Kumar Oberoi, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 491, Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others, 2002(2) RCR(Crl.) 695 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 2324, Rishi Anand and another v. Government of NCT of Delhi and others, 2000(2) RCR(Crl) 272 (SC) : 2002(2) SCC 72 and Ramesh and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005(2) RCR 67. 8. Accordingly, name of Pyari Devi stands deleted from the array of accused. 9. The petition is disposed of.