S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.

As the facts and points of law involved in these two cases are similar, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 1996 of 1994 are in-laws and second wife of Hira Lal, the husband of the complainant. In Cr. Misc. No. 6807 of 1996 the petitioners are Hira Lal and his other family members. In the first quashing application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 4.6.1993, by which the Magistrate has refused• to discharge them and framed charges under Section 494 read with Section 1208 of the Penal Code, whereas in the second case the petitioners have prayed to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 292 (C) of 1989, giving rise to Trial No. 323 of 1995 including the order dated 12th January, 1996, by reason of which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, refused the prayer of the petitioner to drop the criminal case by discharging them. A further prayer has been made in the second quashing application to the effect that a direction should be given to the trial court to pass an order on the compromise petition filed by the petitioners and five others and the