JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann. J.:-The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 193 dated 29.12.2004 registered at Police Station Pinjore for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 IPC and for setting aside of the proceedings taken thereunder. 2. The FIR was registered on the basis of an application submitted by Smt. Renu Gautam respondent to the police. She stated therein that she was married to Kapil Gautam petitioner on 6.2.2003 at Pinjore. Her father had given sufficient dowry at the time of her marriage. Her husband Kapil Gautam, father-in-law Krishan Pal Gautam, mother-in-law Preet Pritam, sister-in-law Anita and sister-in-Iaw’s husband Rakesh were not satisfied with the same and started humiliating her soon after the marriage, besides demanding money for performing marriage of Savita, sister of her husband. When she expressed her inability to do so on account of the fact that her father had taken loans from various persons and the department for performing her marriage, the accused started fighting with her, besides abusing her on various occasions. She did not tell all those things to her parents fearing that they would feel disturbed. Afterwards the accused started beating her which fact she told to her father, who came to her matrimonial home and gave a sum of Rs.20,000/- to her husband. Inspite of that the accused were not satisfied. They raised demand for a motor-cycle besides Rs.70,000/-from her father so that her husband could start some business. When her father refused to fulfill the said demand, the accused left her at her parental place. When her father talked to her in-laws, they again raised the demand as mentioned above. Finally in the month of December 2003, the matter was compromised at the intervention of the Panchayat in which the accused felt sorry and took her back to the matrimonial home. However, she was in for shock when the accused again started torturing and humiliating her. At one point of time, her mother-in-law and her husband tried to set her on fire, while she was working in the kitchen. Although, she was pregnant but she was not given proper diet to eat. She and her husband started living in a separate rented accommodation but there also she was given beatings by her husband on the instigation of her father-in-law. The other accused, who were residing nearby, often visited her place and had been repeating their demand for dowry. Although, she was pregnant but she was not given proper diet to eat. She and her husband started living in a separate rented accommodation but there also she was given beatings by her husband on the instigation of her father-in-law. The other accused, who were residing nearby, often visited her place and had been repeating their demand for dowry. Ultimately, in the month of 2004, on account of harassment and ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused, she had to be admitted in the hospital. During her hospitalisation, she underwent mis-carriage also. All the expenditure on her treatment was met out by her parents. Even her husband thereafter did not come back to the house nor paid the rent to the landlord. She had no other option but to vacate the rented accommodation and while doing so, she took all her articles and shifted to her parental place. With these allegations, the aforementioned FIR was registered. 3. After the registration of FIR and conclusion of the investigation, challan was presented only against the present petitioners, whereas Anita and Rakesh were found innocent. Charges have already been framed against the petitioners, however, no witness has been examined by the prosecution so far. The case is stated to be fixed before the trial Court for the recording of prosecution evidence for 12.3.2007. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition qua Kapil Gautam petitioner and prays for withdrawing the same with liberty to his said client to take all the pleas available to him at the appropriate stage. Ordered accordingly. 5. Learned counsel for Krishan Pal Gautam and Smt. Pritamvati @ Preet Pritam petitioners submitted that though the said petitioners have been summoned for an offence under Section 323 IPC yet there was no medical evidence brought on the record by the complainant. No offence under Section 406 IPC was made out as it was the stand of the complainant herself in the FIR that when she was asked to vacate the rented accommodation and shifted to her parental place, she took all her articles with her. Regarding the allegations levelled against the two petitioners in respect of the cruelty meted out to the complainant, learned counsel contended that there was no specific allegation against them. Only general and vague allegations were levelled. Regarding the allegations levelled against the two petitioners in respect of the cruelty meted out to the complainant, learned counsel contended that there was no specific allegation against them. Only general and vague allegations were levelled. Moreover, it was clear from the perusal of the FIR that once the earlier dispute had been compromised, the complainant along with her husband Kapil Gautam shifted to a rented accommodation, though in the same city and, thus, there was no question of the present petitioners interfering in the day to day life of the complainant and her husband. It has also been submitted that Anita and Rakesh, sister-in-law and sister-in-Iaw’s husband, respectively of the complainant against whom there were also general and vague allegations levelled in the FIR have already been found innocent by the police and, thus, not challaned. The case of the present two petitioners is almost same and similar as that of aforementioned Anita and Rakesh. Prayer has, accordingly, been made for the quashing of the FIR and setting aside of all the proceedings taken thereunder in respect of Krishan.Pal Gautam and Smt. Pritamvati @ Preet Pritam petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that no case was made out for quashing of the FIR and setting aside of the criminal proceedings against the aforementioned two petitioners as there was sufficient material available on the file to show their involvement. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. It is not denied by learned counsel for the respondents that Anita and Rakesh, against whom almost same and similar allegations were levelled in the FIR as were against the present two petitioners, have since been found innocent by the police. Even otherwise, from the reading of the FIR, it is clear that only general and vague allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. No specific averment has been made qua any overt act on the part of the petitioners. In view of the specific averment in the FIR that when the complainant was asked to vacate the rented accommodation and shift to her parental place, she had taken all the articles, it cannot be said that the petitioners were liable for an offence under Section 406 IPC. The complainant also did not mention that any of the dowry articles was misappropriated by the accused. 7. The complainant also did not mention that any of the dowry articles was misappropriated by the accused. 7. Though, there are allegations in the FIR that the complainant was given beatings by the accused yet no medical evidence has been brought on the record. Even otherwise, when the complainant was living with her husband in a rented accommodation, it was highly improbable that the present petitioners could give any beating to her. It appears that the petitioners, who are father-in-Iaw and mother-in-law, respectively of the complainant, have been roped in by her so as to spread the net too wide by implicating the near relatives of her husband. Under these circumstances, it would be a futile exercise to allow the continuation of criminal proceedings against the two petitioners. 8. In view of the above, the present petition qua Krishan Pal Gautam and Smt. Pritamvati @ Preet Pritam petitioners is accepted. FIR No. 193 dated 29.12.2004 registered at Police Station Pinjore for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 IPC, is so far as it pertains to them, is quashed and all the proceedings taken thereunder, again in respect of them, are set aside. ———————————