The statutory duty to care for senior citizens is emphasized, with abandonment being a distinct criminal offense under the Act.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in S.T.No.99 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Palakkad ('Trial Court', in short), which has arisen from Crime No.792 of 2018 registered by the Palakkad Town South Police Station under Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act , 2007 ('Act', in short).

2. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner and the accused Nos.2 to 4 are the sons of the defacto complainant. Even though the accused were bound to care and protect the defacto complainant, they, with an intention to wholly abandon the senior citizen, have abandoned him. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been diligently maintaining his father by sending money orders to him as evidenced by Annexures A4 to A7 receipts. Actually, the defacto complainant had filed a complaint against his sons, the petitioner and the accused Nos.2 to 4. However, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report only in respect of the petitioner and two sons, by deliberately exonerating one son. Moreover, the defacto complainant is now no more.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.M.C. He submits that the contention that has been raised before this Court is to be decided by the Trial Court. It is not for this Court to embark upon a mini trial and come to a conclusion that the petitioner was diligently maintaining his father. Moreover, under Section 24 of the Act, what is to be looked at is whether the petitioner and other accused persons have abandoned the 2^nd respondent.

5. The specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused persons have abandoned the defacto complainant, their father. In this context, it is apposite to refer to Section 24 of the Act, which reads as follows:

24. 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.

6. A plain reading of the above provision substantiates that, if the person having the care and protection of a senior citizen, leaves such senior citizen in any place, with an intention of wholly abandoning him, the accused persons have committed the above offence.

7. Indisputably, the defacto complainant is the father of the petitioner and the other accused persons. Therefore, necessarily he has a statutory duty to take care and protect his father.

8. The trump card of the contention for the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was diligently sending money orders to his father from time to time. This is a matter to be looked into by the Trial Court. Moreover, the crucial aspect is whether the accused persons have abandoned the defacto complainant, without looking after to his care and protection. In view of the specific allegations in Annexure 1 FIR and Annexure 8 final report, I am of the definite view that this is not a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss the Crl.M.C., but without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the Trial Court.