1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these applications the same are being disposed of with this common order.

2. In these applications, the petitioner have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 1529 of 2010 including the order dated 15.01.2011 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi by which cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. A complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 in which it was alleged that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Sunil Kalra (petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 2756 of 2013) on 08.12.1993. It has been alleged that the petitioners always demanded Rs. 5,00,000/-from the father of the complainant and for which the accused persons used to abuse and torture the complainant. Further allegation has been made that on 04.07.2010 the accused-husband had abused his wife and had also assaulted her as well as his daughter. On 17.08.2010 accused Sunil Kalra came to Ranchi and made a demand of Rs. 2.5 lakh as a condition precedent for keeping the complainant and her children with him. Inability on the part of the father of the complainant made Sunil Kalra become aggressive and at the instance of his brother Kamal Kumar Kalra @ Kamal Kalra @ Bunty Kalra the complainant and her children were assaulted.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Complaint Case No. 1529 of 2010 was instituted.

5. Upon conducting an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as her witnesses cognizance was taken by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi on 15.01.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Heard Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned A.P.P., for the State.

7. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 2756 of 2013 is the husband of the complainant whereas petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 2773 of 2013 is her brother-in-law. Learned counsel submits that the entire allegations are false and frivolous and only with a view to drag the petitioners in a criminal case false allegations have been levelled in the complaint petition. It has been submitted that so far as the brother-in-law of the complainant namely Kamal Kumar Kalra @ Kamal Kalra @ Bunty Kalra is concerned, no specific allegation has been levelled against him and he has been implicated only because of the fact that he is a family member of the husband of the complainant. It has also been submitted that a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also instituted by the complainant in which there was a compromise and in terms of the compromise an amount of Rs. Seven thousand per month is being paid by the husband to the complainant. Submission has been advanced that the compromise effected in the 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding includes within its domain the complaint case also and in such circumstance the entire criminal proceedings deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2013 (1) East Cr.C. 30 (SC), Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others, (2005) 3 SCC 299.

8. The arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners has to be seen in the context of the allegation which have been levelled in the complaint petition. It seems no specific allegation has been levelled against Kamal Kumar Kalra @ Kamal Kalra @ Bunty Kalra and in fact allegations made in the complaint petition has not been substantiated in the statement of the complainant recorded under solemn affirmation. It appears that in her statement the complainant had merely stated about the role of her brother-in-law being co