ORDER : 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. 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 confined to instigating her husband. The inclusion of Kamal Kumar Kalra @ Kamal Kalra @ Bunty Kalra as an accused seems to be by way of a malicious prosecution being related to the husband of the complainant. 9. It appears that in her statement the complainant had merely stated about the role of her brother-in-law being confined to instigating her husband. The inclusion of Kamal Kumar Kalra @ Kamal Kalra @ Bunty Kalra as an accused seems to be by way of a malicious prosecution being related to the husband of the complainant. 9. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 the tendency to include the family members of the husband have been considered and it has been held as follows:- “20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.” 10. In the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2013 (1) East Cr.C. 30 (SC) it has been held as follows:- “33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimoney and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimoney and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. ” 11. As has been enumerated above, the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 2773 of 2013 seems to have been arrayed as an accused as a measure of retaliation against the husband. 12. Neither in the complaint petition nor in the statement of the complainant allegation against the petitioner Kamal Kumar Kalra @ Kamal Kalra @ Bunty Kalra has been specified. In fact in her statement the complainant had made a passing reference to the name of Kamal Kumar Kalra @ Kamal Kalra @ Bunty Kalra as being instrumental in instigating her husband. The allegation against Kamal Kumar Kalra @ Kamal Kalra @ Bunty Kalra on examining with circumspection leads credence to the fact that he has been implicated on the primary consideration of he being a near relative of the husband of the complainant. Such being the position the continuation of the criminal proceeding as against Kamal Kumar Kalra @ Kamal Kalra @ Bunty Kalra (petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 2773 of 2013) needs to be interfered with as allowing the prosecution to continue against the said petitioner would be an abuse of the process of Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the compromise which has been arrived at in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has submitted that the same shall include the complaint case also and the complainant cannot be permitted to resile from her earlier commitment. Reference in this connection has been made to the case of Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others, (2005) 3 SCC 299 . 13. The fact emanating in the present case is easily distinguishable with the case under reference as in the said case the compromise petition which was filed before the Family Court spelled out the details of the compromise and after receiving the lump sum maintenance and stridhan property she had refused to withdraw the complaint case. 14. 13. The fact emanating in the present case is easily distinguishable with the case under reference as in the said case the compromise petition which was filed before the Family Court spelled out the details of the compromise and after receiving the lump sum maintenance and stridhan property she had refused to withdraw the complaint case. 14. The compromise which is said to have been arrived in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seems to have been restricted only to such proceeding although a vague reference has been made that no step will be taken in the complainant case. Such compromise cannot be construed to include within its periphery all the cases which have been instituted by or and against the complainant. Such being the situation no benefit accrues to the petitioners to get the criminal proceedings quashed on the basis of a vague compromise. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the compromise is rejected as being misconceived. 15. As a cumulative result of discussions made hereinabove, Cr. M.P. No. 2773 of 2013 is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding 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 is quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. 16. As regards Cr. M.P. No. 2756 of 2013 is concerned, there being no merits in this application, the same is, hereby, dismissed.