JUDGMENT :

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.

1. The petitioners seek quashing of the Criminal Complaint No. 73-2017 titled as Shalini Vs. Sukhwinder Singh and others, filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short `the 2005 Act’) and the summoning order dated 13.02.2017 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. As per the facts of the present case, Sukhwinder Singh-respondent No.2, son of petitioners No.1 and 2 and brother of petitioner No.3, married Shalini-respondent No.1 on 22.04.2015. From said wedlock, one male child was born on 23.07.2016. After marriage, Shalini stayed at Chandigarh with her husband, who is working in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, at House No.610-A, Sector-12, Chandigarh, and there was no interference of the petitioners in the nuclear family affairs of respondents No.1 and 2. Petitioner No.3-sister of respondent No.2 has been working as a Government Teacher since 2007 and residing in her matrimonial home in District Jalandhar since 2009 i.e. after her marriage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 20.11.2016, parents and other family members of respondent No.1 went to Chandigarh and brought respondent No.1 back to Amritsar, along with the minor child and all valuable articles. Regarding this incident, a complaint dated 21.11.2016 was given to UT Police, Chandigarh, by respondent No.2 and as a counterblast to the same, respondent No.1 had filed a criminal complaint under the 2005 Act, and another one under Sections 406, 498-A IPC.

4. The petitioners had filed an application for dismissal of the complaint filed under the 2005 Act, before the learned Magistrate, inter-alia, pleading that respondent No.1 (daughter-in- law) never resided at Village Mujjafarpur, Jalandhar nor did she have any domestic relationship with them and/or she had shared any household with petitioners, but the said application was dismissed on 23.07.2018, without taking into consideration the said factual position.

5. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 either remained with her husband at Chandigarh or at Amritsar, which fact had been clearly reflected in her self-declaration form at the time of her appointment as a teacher in the Navodya Vidalaya, Faridkot (Annexure P-11). The complaint under the 2005 Act, has been pending for the last 4 years and except for one official witness, no evidence has been adduced by complainant-respondent No.1 and the dispute, if any, is between husband and wife. It is further submitted that petitioners No.1 and 2, 65 years and 73 years of age respectively, have been dragged into the present litigation only with a view to harassing them and the allegations contained in the complaint are general and omnibus in nature. Above all petitioner No.2 has been on Dialysis thrice a week and as far as petitioner No.3 is concerned, she is a married sister-in-law of respondent No.1 and being a Government Teacher, she with her two minor children, has been living in her matrimonial home since 2009 at Jalandhar, which is a far away place from her parents i.e. petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2. Rather in her service record, respondent No.1 has given the address of Chandigarh, where her husband (respondent No.2), resides.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is no specific allegation as to how the relatives of the husband i.e. petitioners had caused acts of domestic violence and hence, the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court Shyamlal Devda and Others vs Parimala, (2020)3 SCC 14.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs State of U.P. and Another, (2012)10 SCC 741, wherein it was held that a fact borne out of experience, cannot be overlooked that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members in domestic quarrel taking place in the mat