ORDER : This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in C.C. No. 250 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Thiruvallur and quash the same. 2. The petitioners herein are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the respondent, who have preferred a complaint to the Protection Officer, Tiruvallur. Thereafter, a domestic incident report has been forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tiruvallur, who had taken the same on file under Sections 18, 19 and 22 of under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) in C.C.No.250 of 2010 against which the above Quash petition has been filed. 3. This Court on perusal of the adjudication finds that the respondent has not appeared despite receipt of private notice dated 29.09.2010, for which the proof of service has been filed, thereafter, also she failed to appear. On 23.03.2017, another private notice was taken, which was returned with the endorsement “Information Delivered”. This Court had sought a report from the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tiruvallur, who by report dated 03.08.2017. From the report, it is found that the respondent has not been appearing before the lower Court despite receipt of notice from the lower Court. The name of the respondent has been printed in the cause list, thereafter also, there is no appearance for the respondent. Hence, this Court propose to proceed on the merits of the case as adjourning the case without any progress would serve no purpose. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the marriage between the petitioners son Syed Sabjan and the respondent Bazira Begaum took place on 15.11.2007 at Chennai, immediately after the marriage, the petitioners son and the respondent had left to Dubai and they were living matrimonial life happily. During September, 2008, the respondent returned to Chennai for the child birth and she was living with her parents. After the child birth, she left back to Dubai with the child and thereafter, she returned to India during January 2010. Five months thereafter, she had preferred a complaint to the Protection Officer during May, 2010. Based on her complaint, the Domestic Incident report came to be filed. 5. After the child birth, she left back to Dubai with the child and thereafter, she returned to India during January 2010. Five months thereafter, she had preferred a complaint to the Protection Officer during May, 2010. Based on her complaint, the Domestic Incident report came to be filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the compliant dated 13.05.2010 of the respondent to the Protection Officer, it could be seen that there is no averments and allegations against the petitioners constituting any violence. Further, it is submitted that it is an admitted case of the respondent that the marriage took place to the petitioners son and the respondent on 15.11.2007 and 15 days thereafter on 31.11.2007, the respondent left to Dubai. The entire complaint relates only to the petitioners son's relationship with the respondent in Dubai wherein she had complained that the petitioners son used to smoke keeping besides the respondent when she was pregnant and which was not to the liking of the respondent. When the same was questioned by the relatives of the respondent in Dubai, he had abused her. Further, the petitioners son was always in company of his friends and used to force the respondent to cook for his friends, even for purchase of the saree, anklets and for child's doctor visit, he would only depute his friends to accompany the respondent stating that he is always busy. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that it could be further seen from the complaint that the respondent had to fight a way out to come back to India for her delivery and during the marriage Rs.50,000/- in cash was received by the petitioners son and 42 sovereigns of gold which was given as Sridhana and thereafter, one month after the marriage, for construction of house they have demanded Rs.80,000/-. The only allegation is that the petitioners had not made payment of Rs.50,000/- in the Bank account and this amount was taken by the petitioners son. The petitioners son due to his debts and some credit card fraud he had been put behind bars in Dubai. To get him out of the prison, she had to spend huge sum of money. The petitioners son was having extra marital relationship with their neighbours. The petitioners son due to his debts and some credit card fraud he had been put behind bars in Dubai. To get him out of the prison, she had to spend huge sum of money. The petitioners son was having extra marital relationship with their neighbours. The passport of the respondent and the child was retained by him, which was informed to the Manager of the petitioners son, which had offended him and on 29.12.2010, the petitioners son had consumed alcohol and had picked up a fight with the respondent. Thereafter, abetted the respondent to commit suicide and the petitioners son also attempted suicide. With the intervention of the respondent's relatives, she could get her passport and of the child and thereafter, came back to India. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thus from the entire reading of the complaint, the Domestic Violence is only against the petitioners son, since, the entire incident had taken place in Dubai. It is an admitted case that except for 10 to 15 days the marriage, the respondent had lived in India along with the petitioners. Thereafter, from 2007 to 2010 she had lived with the petitioners son in Dubai. The petitioners never lived together as “shared household” and had any domestic relationship. This complaint has been filed to spite vengeance and cause harassment to the petitioners. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are senior citizens without any income and they are living in hand to mouth existence with the support of relatives and others. Further, the 1st petitioner is suffering from paralysis attack and he cannot move without an attendant. The 2nd petitioner is a chronic heart patient and had undergone bye-pass twice for her heart problem and the pendency of the above case has caused great mental agony. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the domestic incident report it is found that no protection order needed under Domestic Violence Act has been made against the petitioners, since, there is no complaint of any Domestic Violence as against the petitioners. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the lower Court in view of no order needed to be passed against the petitioners ought not to have taken the Domestic Incident Report on file and to have assigned case number and issued summons to the petitioners. 11. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the lower Court in view of no order needed to be passed against the petitioners ought not to have taken the Domestic Incident Report on file and to have assigned case number and issued summons to the petitioners. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that issuance of summons to the petitioners is abuse of process of Court. The issuance of summons against the petitioners is in violation of law. Further, this Court to prevent judicial process from being an instrument of oppression or harassment in the hands of frustrated or vindictive litigants not to allow continuation of the proceedings for oblique motive of the respondent and prayed that in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court to quash the proceedings against them. 12. This Court on perusal of the complaint finds that there is no averment in the complaint against the petitioners. It is an admitted case of the complainant that it is the petitioners son, who had subjected her to Domestic Violence while her stay with him in Dubai. Further, from the domestic incident report, it could be find that there is no order needed under Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners. Further, taking into consideration the age and health conditions of the petitioners and the totality of the case and on the guidelines as stated in the case of STATE OF HARIYANA VS. BHAJANLAL reported in 1992 SCC Crl.426, it is clear that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 250 of 2010 is manifestly attended with mala fide and the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance with a view to spite a personal grudge. 13. Hence, the case against the petitioners in C.C. No. 250 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tiruvallur is quashed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.