ORDER :

Heard, Sri H.Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing respondent No.1-State. Despite service of notice upon respondent No.2, none appears on his behalf.

2. Seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner who is arrayed as accused in C.C.No.301 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Making his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever. Learned counsel states that though the petitioner was attending the needs and necessities of respondent No.2, respondent No.2, at the instigation of his living partner i.e., L.W-2-T.Laxmi Sudha, started foisting false cases against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that none of the ingredients of the charge sheet attracts Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “MWPSC Act, 2007” for brevity) and hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, the submission of learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the petitioner as son is under obligation to take care and protect his father-respondent No.2, but he did not do so. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also contends that as the petitioner abandoned his father-respondent No.2, he has to be punished for committing the offence punishable under Section 24 of MWPSC Act, 2007 and thus, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The facts of the case in nut-shell, as narrated in the charge sheet, are that in the year 1985, respondent No.2 took the petitioner in adoption. He got joined the petitioner in Hyderabad Public School and later, at NALSAR University. The petitioner secured Central Government job. Though respondent No.2 suffered with heart attack twice, the petitioner never supported him financially and morally. The petitioner is harassing respondent No.2 regarding property. On 07.12.2020, the petitioner approached the house of respondent No.2 and forced him for DNA test.

6. As per the case of the prosecution, respondent No.2 is aged about 74 years. As per Section 24 of MWPSC Act, 2007, ‘senior citizen’ means a person being a citizen of India who attained the age of 60 years and above. Thus, respondent No.2 can be termed to be ‘senior citizen’. The whole version of the prosecuting agency is that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Section 24 of MWPSC Act, 2007.

7. Section 24 of the MWPSC Act, 2007, makes a person who exposures and abandons a senior citizen, whom he is under obligation to take care or protect, liable for punishment. The said provision reads as under:-

“Exposure and abandonment of senior citizen- Whoever, having the care or protection of senior citizen leaves, such senior citizen in any place with the intention of wholly abandoning such senior citizen, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.”

8. Contending that the petitioner cannot be held to be liable of committing such an offence, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order rendered by the Presiding Officer of Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kandukur Division, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.H/1683/2022, dated 18.10.2022. Narrating the case of respondent No.2 herein, who was the petitioner in the said case, it is stated that respondent No.2 mentioned that he handled many positions in his political life, but he did not earn anything and though he is getting monthly pension of Rs.50,000/-, he is unable to meet the requirements. The observation made by the Tribunal, upon going through the merits of the case, is as under:-

“In view of the facts mentioned above in my view the petit