ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the appellants' petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking quashing of Complaint No. COMA 1596 of 2019 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and the summoning order dated 08.11.2019 by which notice was issued to the appellants, was dismissed by the High Court. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows. The appellants are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law of the respondent-complainant. 3.1. Anuj Jaipuria, the younger son of appellant no.1 and 2, married the respondent-complainant on 22.11.2004. Two children were born out of the said marriage. 3.2. Appellant no.1 purchased a residential house in Noida. The ground floor was occupied by the younger son, Anuj Jaipuria, along with the respondent, while appellant no.1 and appellant no.2 occupied the first floor. The elder son, appellant no.3, and his wife, appellant no.4, reside separately. A housing loan of Rs.2,47,13,363/- was issued in the name of Anuj Jaipuria and the respondent, with appellant no.1 named as the principal borrower and appellant no.2 as co-borrower, allegedly without their knowledge or consent. 3.3. Subsequently, individuals claiming to be officials of M/s Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd visited the residence, seeking information regarding Anuj Jaipuria and the respondent due to default in EMI payments. Upon enquiry, the appellants discovered that their son and the respondent had mortgaged the property of appellant no.1 without his knowledge, allegedly by forging his signature on various documents. 3.4. On 11.04.2018, appellant no.1 filed a complaint before the D.C.P., Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, against his son, Anuj Jaipuria, along with officials of the financial company and an officer of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, seeking registration of an FIR. A similar complaint was also submitted on 25.04.2018 before the S.S.P., Noida. 3.5. In April 2018, Anuj Jaipuria and the respondent moved out of the residential premises. 3.6. The complaint dated 11.04.2018 was subsequently converted into FIR No.0193 dated 29.09.2018, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), against Anuj Jaipuria, officials of the financial company, and the officer of the authority concerned. 3.7. 3.5. In April 2018, Anuj Jaipuria and the respondent moved out of the residential premises. 3.6. The complaint dated 11.04.2018 was subsequently converted into FIR No.0193 dated 29.09.2018, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), against Anuj Jaipuria, officials of the financial company, and the officer of the authority concerned. 3.7. In November 2019, the respondent filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, being COMA No.1596 of 2019, and the Judicial Magistrate issued notice in the matter on 08.11.2019, summoning the appellants. 3.8. Subsequently, the respondent and Anuj Jaipuria were arrested on 06.01.2021. 3.9. The appellants thereafter preferred a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the said complaint and summoning order. The High Court, however, did not quash the proceedings and instead disposed of the petition with certain directions. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before us in the present appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 5. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not entered appearance or filed any response before this Court. 6. In the present case, the sequence of events leaves little doubt that the complaint filed by the respondent is a counterblast to the legal proceedings already initiated by appellant no.1 against her and her husband, the appellants' son. The material placed on record indicates that the appellants were cheated in a financial transaction involving substantial amounts, where their property was mortgaged without their consent or knowledge through alleged acts of forgery and impersonation. The complaints filed by appellant no.1 with the Economic Offences Wing and the police authorities eventually led to registration of FIR No.0193 of 2018. It is only thereafter that the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act against all the appellants. 7. It is also relevant to note that the appellants no.3 and 4, being the elder son and daughter-in-law of appellant no.1 and 2, are residing separately and have had no involvement in the domestic setup of the respondent. There is no allegation or material to show that they shared a household or had any domestic relationship with the respondent. Their implication in the present proceedings, in our view, appears unwarranted and without basis. 8. There is no allegation or material to show that they shared a household or had any domestic relationship with the respondent. Their implication in the present proceedings, in our view, appears unwarranted and without basis. 8. We also find it significant that the complaint under the DV Act does not even array the husband, Anuj Jaipuria, as a party to the proceedings. The allegations are general and devoid of any specific incident or act that would attract proceedings under the DV Act. Moreover, the complaint has been filed after nearly 15 years of marriage, and crucially, after criminal proceedings were initiated against the respondent and her husband by appellant no.1. This timing, in our considered view, reinforces that the present proceedings are motivated and retaliatory in nature. 9. Despite due notice, the respondent has not appeared or contested the matter before this Court. This further reinforces the appellants' contention that the complaint lacks substance and appears to have been initiated with the intent to retaliate. Continuation of such proceedings would amount to misuse of the provisions of the DV Act and cause undue harassment to the appellants. 10. In light of the above discussion and the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act being COMA No.1596 of 2019 and the summoning order dated 08.11.2019 are quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.