Proceedings are liable to be quashed when the complaint fails to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, specifically the requirement of 'care and abandonment' under the Senior Citizens Act and 'intent to cause alarm' under Section 506 of the IPC.

::ORDER::

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners – accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.818 of 2022 on the file of the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, for the offences under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the elder son of the de facto complainant, who is accused No. 1, and the daughter-in-law of the de facto complainant, i.e., accused No.2, used to harass the de facto complainant and that, 15 years ago, accused No.1 married accused No.2 against the will and wish of LWs 1 to 3 and thereafter he left the house, and from then on they never had any cordial relationship with the de facto complainant or their family. It is alleged that LW2, who is the younger son of the de facto complainant, went to Ireland and has been earning well for the past 10 years. While so, in the month of December 2021, both accused Nos.1 and 2 went to the house of the de facto complainant and demanded a share in the property and pensionary benefits, as well as in the earnings of LW2, and further demanded Rs.1 crore from LW2. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 created nuisance for two hours by threatening to kill LW2 and also posed a life threat to the de facto complainant. It is further alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 filed a case against LW2 at Armoor Police Station on 01.02.2022, and the police were calling them over phone every day. It is further alleged that on 14.02.2022, the accused posted false videos in the Mochi Sangham WhatsApp group by uploading photographs of the wife of LW2 and circulating false rumors against her. Thus, the accused are alleged to be trying to extort around Rs.2 crores from LW2 by threatening them. Accordingly, the complaint was registered and the charge sheet is laid for the offences under Section 506 of IPC and Section 24 of the Act.

3. Heard the submission of Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. In spite of service of notice, no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant has not furnished any material particulars with regard to the alleged threatening calls made by the 1st petitioner and that the allegations do not point out the ingredients under Section 506 of IPC or Section 24 of the Act. He further submitted that the petitioners have never demanded any amount or share in the property and that the younger son of the de facto complainant himself is a vagabond, and that the petitioners helped him finally complete his MBA course at Ireland by repaying the loan availed for the said purpose. He further submitted that even the statements of witnesses do not point out any allegations against the petitioners herein to attract the offences. Thus, the petitioners are facing false allegations and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against them. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that, to prosecute the petitioners, permission is necessary for investigation of any offence which is non-cognizable in nature, and that Section 506 of IPC is a non- cognizable offence. When the allegations under Section 24 of the Act do not attract, only a non-cognizable offence would remain, and thus the investigation in the present case, without there being any permission from the Magistrate, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that when one of the offences alleged is a cognizable offence, the police do not require any permission to investigate such a case. He further submitted that Section 24 of the Act does not require any such sanction and thus, the investigation or the procedure adopted by the police is