RAJ BAHADUR MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24112 of 2025

Raj Bahadur Mishra
                                                                      .....Applicant(s)
                                       Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                            :     Atul Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                       :     G.A.

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.
                                                                NA528 No. 24112 of 2025
                                     2

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
                                                                        3

                                    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
                                                                                                      (Deepak Verma,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SURJIT KUMAR DEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad