HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24112 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 25.06.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Hawali, Farrukhabad as well as entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.758 of 2021 (Smt.Shradha vs. Atul and others), under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that opposite party no.2 is daughter-in- law of the applicant and marriage of the opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the son of the applicant in the year 2004. Thereafter, on account of some matrimonial dispute, opposite party no.2 initiated present proceeding under sections 498A & 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Summons were issued against the applicant and his son. Applicant and his son challenged the summoning order by way of filing Criminal Misc.Application No.16404 of 2009 (Raj Bahadur Mishra & another vs. State of U.P. & another) and coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 11.08.2009 referred the matter to Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. Mediation & Conciliation Centre has submitted report on 22.12.2009 that both are decided to live together in future as husband and wife. Wife shall go alongwith her husband. The applicant no.2 undertakes to maintain his wife and not to harass his wife. The settlement between husband and wife is explained in Para-6 of the settlement agreement, which is quoted below:- "6. Following settlement has been arrived at between the parties:- a. That both husband and wife i.e. Atul Kumar Mishra (applicant no.2) and Smt.Shardha Mishra (Opposite party no.2) have decided to live together in future as husband and wife and the wife shall go alongwith her husband as soon as he get employment to any other place except the house of in-laws of opposite party no.2. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raj Bahadur Mishra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) b. That the applicant no.2 undertakes to maintain his wife to full of his ability and not to harass her in any manner whatsoever while living together in future. c. That both the parties have agreed that all the cases pending between the parties in different courts shall be withdrawn at the earliest in order to pave way for a new beginning to their matrimonial life. d. That the parents of both the parties undertake that they will also cooperate with the family of applicant no.2 and opposite party no.2 and also see that no dispute arises between them in future. e. That the parties have agreed that in case of default of any of the condition aforesaid by either of the parties, it will be open to the aggrieved party to take any future course of action." 4.Thereafter, Criminal Misc.Application No.16404 of 2009 (Raj Bahadur Mishra & another vs. State of U.P. & another) was dismissed in default by Court's order dated 04.09.2014. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that husband of the opposite party no.2 died on 10.12.2013. Son of the applicant and opposite party no.2 were living together. Present application has filed to quash the proceeding as opposite party no.2 had settled the matter with the applicant's son and on account of settlement entered between the son of the applicant and opposite party no.2 before Mediation & Conciliation Centre, as such, present proceeding should be dropped. He next submitted that on perusal of order-sheet, it is apparent that opposite party no.2 is not pursuing the present proceeding and on every date, she is found absent. Applicant is father-in-law of the opposite party no.2. Notice was issued to opposite party no.2 but opposite party no.2 did not turn up and by order dated 20.11.2025 Court has observed that despite notice served upon opposite party no.2, same has not been received by opposite party no.2 and as such the same is deemed to be served. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is not present, proceeding be continued ex-parte against opposite party no.2. 5. Considered the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. It is apparent that applicant and his son challenged the cognizance and summoning order in the present complaint case by filing Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.16404 of 2009 (Raj Bahadur Mishra & another vs. State of U.P. & another) and this Court referred the matter to Mediation & Conciliation Centre and before Mediation & Conciliation Centre, parties appeared i.e. son of the applicant and opposite party no.2 and they settled their dispute, which is apparent from Mediation & Conciliation Centre report dated 22.12.2009. It is also apparent from the order-sheet that opposite party no.2 is not pursuing the present complaint and opposite party no.2 has not put appearance before the trial court in the present proceeding. Since husband and wife have settled the matter and further evidence shows that opposite party no.2 has no interest to pursue the present matter and despite service of notice, opposite NA528 No. 24112 of 2025 2 party no.2 did not appear before the court, husband is no more and applicant is father- in-law, this Court finds that no dispute remain pending between the parties. 6. In view of above, the present application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. is allowed. The complaint lodged by opposite party no.2 as Complaint Case No.758 of 2021 (Smt.Shradha vs. Atul and others), under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad, is hereby, set aside. May 7, 2026 SKD NA528 No. 24112 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad