Allowed

Toodi Bharat Ratna v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC4 Nov 2022CRLP/274/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court held that since the complainant (father) had a pension of Rs. 50,000, there was no evidence of intention to wholly abandon him, rendering the case an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The pending proceedings in C.C.No.301 of 2021 against the petitioner are hereby quashed, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Toodi Bharat Ratna Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 274 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Toodi Bharat Ratna, S/o. Dr. Toodi Ratnakar, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Govt. Service, R/o. Flat No. 341, Alekhya Towers, Sitaram Nagar Colony, Bairamleguda, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 079.

¶9

,Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Represented by Sub-lnspector Meerpet Police Station, Rachakonda (through Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad)

¶12

Dr. Toodi Ratnakar, S/o. Late T. Ramaiah, Aged about 74years, Occ. Doctor, Rlo.3-22012, Prashanthi Hills, Road No. 12 MeerpetSaroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 500 097.

¶13

...RespondenUComplainant

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash C.C.No.301 of 2021 against the Petitioner/Accused on the file of the ll Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-ll Additional .Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.

¶15

(As per the Court order dated 16-11-2021 in l.A.No. 3 of 2021 , prayer is amended in Crl.P.No. 274 of 2021)

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that irr^'.he circumstances stated in the Memora rdum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, th,: lligh Court may be pleased to stay of .li further proceedings including taking any ,:oercive action against the Petitione herein in connection with complaint anrl investigation in CC No.301 of 2021 on re file of the ll -Metropolitan Magistrat: -Cr,rm-ll Additional Junior Civil Judge , C rberabad at L B Nagar.

¶18

(As per the Court orc :r dated 16-11-2021 in LA.No. 3 of 202', lra,/er is amended in Crl.P.No. 274 ot 2{ 21)

¶19

l.A. NO: 4 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memor€ rdum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, th3 ligl Court may be pleased To stay all fr rther proceedings in CC No. 301 of 2021 on the file of the ll Metropolitan Magistr: te -Cum - ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Cyrerabad at LB Nagar against the petitioner /accused and dispense with the personal appearance of the Petitioner/accused ir CC No.30'l ol 2021 on the file of the ll -Metropolitan Magistrate -Cum-ll A ditional Junior Civil Judge , Cyberabad ;rt L B Nagar.

¶21

This Petition ' oming on for hearing, upon perusing .hr: Mlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal 'etition and upon hearing the arguments o'Sri Rajesh Kumar Herur, Advocate for re Petitioner and the Additional Public lrr tsecutor on behalf of the Respondent N .1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2

¶22

The Court made the bllowing: ORDER

¶23

IIOIVTILE .pR, JUSTIC4 AHILLARUR SI]MALAIHA

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.274 of 2O2l

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

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.

¶27

Seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner who 1S arrayed AS accused in C.C.No.3O1. of 2O2l on the lile of the Court of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, the present Crimina-l Petition is filed.

¶28

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 o[ 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 petitigner.

¶29

¶30

Dr.CSL, J Cr'I'Na.274 of 2O21

¶31

Learned rounsel submits that none of the ingredients of the r:har1 r: sheet attracts Section 24 af the l{ai ntenance and Welt ;.re of Parents and Senior Citize ns; Act, 2OO7 (hereinaf er referred to as "MWPSC Act, 2007" lor brevity) and henc ), the proceedings are liable to be cluashed.

¶32

Per contra, the submission of learn:r. Additional Public Pr )secutor is that the petitione)r i1s s,)n is under obligatior to take care and protect his fatl-r,:r'-re spondent No.2, bu he did not do so. Learned Additional Public Prosecutr r also contends that as the l)etitioner abandon, d his father-respondent No.2, he has to be punishec lor committing the offence pr-rnishable under Section 1 4 of MWPSC Act, 2OO7 ar.d thus, the Criminal Petition i liable to be dismissed.

¶33

The facts of the case in nut-shell, as narrated in the charge sl eet, are that in the year 1985, resprtnclent No.2 took the petitioner 1n adoption. He got jo ned the petitioner I t-t Hyderabad Public School i tnd later, at NALSAR University. The petitioner secured Central Governm 'nt job. Though respondent No.2 sufft:red -yith

¶34

¶35

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.274 oI2O21

¶36

heart attack twice, the petitioner never supported him financially and morally. The petitioner 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.

¶37

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 6O 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 AcL,2OO7.

¶38

Section 24 of tlee MWPSC Act, 2OO7, 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:-

¶39

"Exposure and abandonment of senior citizenWhoever, having the care or protection of senior citizen leaves, such senior citizen in any place with the intention of wholly abandoning suc\

¶40

¶41

¶42

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.274 of2O21

¶43

¶44

enior citizen, shail be punis ri:ble with mprisonment of either description for a term uhich may extend to three months or hnt: which nay extend to five thousand rupees ol rvith both."

¶45

( ontending that the petitioner canf ol. br: held to be liable , 1' committing such an offence, learned counsel for the pr titioner relied upon the order r:rrdered by the Presid rg Officer of Tribunal for Maintenzrrl,re 1nd Welfare of Pa ents arld Senior Citizens ald Su r-Divisional Magist^'ate, Kandukur Division, Range F erldv District in Case I o.H/1683/2022, dated 18.10.2022. Nrrrrating the ca.se o respondent No.2 herein, who was 1i:re lretitioner in the sa I case, it is stated that respondr:nt fio.l) mentioned that h : handled many positions in his )( iitical life, but he di, not earn anything and thoug e hi: is getting montl iy pension of Rs.SO,OOO/-, he is urLa.ble to meet the requir :ments. The observation made I r.v th.e Tribunal, upon oing through the merits of the cas,:, is ls under:-

¶46

'[n view of the facts mentioned abovt^jn nry view the petitioner herein needs any financial assistance towards maintenance unde:- the above Act, as he is already getting a J. ens;ion of Rs.SO,OOO/ - (Rupees thousands or 11,) and the )

¶47

¶48

D..CSL, J CrlPNo.274 of 2021

¶49

,lI t

¶50

petition frled by him before this Tribunal is not maintainable."

¶51

Thus, it is abundantly clear that respondent No.2 is not a person who has no sources of income or that the sources of income are so meager that he cannot sustain himself. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, only when it is shown that a person leaves a senior citizen whom he is taking care and protection with an intention of wholly abandoning such senior citizerr, the said person carr be punished. No where in the charge sheet, it is indicated that respondent No.2 was left by the petitioner with al intention of wholly abandoning him. Further more, it is not the case of the prosecuting agency that respondent No.2 has got no sources of income or that he is unable to sustain himself. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds for the trial Court to proceed with the trial of the case. Admittedly, when not even a pima facie case is made out, it would be wholly undesirable for the proceedings to continue. That apart, it would certainly amount to abuse of^process of^Court.

¶52

4-*-.-i.---+i I

¶53

¶54

D|.CSI., J CnPLo.2i'4 of 2O21

¶55

Therefore, his Court is of the view that the procr:edings ar:e liable t be quashed.

¶56

I?esu tantly, the Criminal Petition is allow<:d. The proceeding ; that are pending against ttLe pe -il.ioner rvho is arrayed rs accused in C.C.No.3Ol of 2O2l ori the file of the Court of II Additional Metropolitan lt{agjstrate,

¶57

Cyberabad are hereby quashed.

¶58

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous aprrl:cations, if

¶59

^ any, shall rtand closed.

¶60

t I

¶61

/ffRUE^COPY" ^3';[\iilYtESI'ry* V/

¶62

SiECTION^OFFICER

¶63

t''.'

¶64

J un ior^{c iv ir r ud se'} ;pJis?[^{x,T ]l'uxni:u"""-"-^-1:::} 2.^{The Station'"' t" #"t''Meerpet Police Station'Rachakonda District'} Hish^{courtforthestate of} , +x8^"r:::::fi frgJxS:e;,stl.lfProsecutor'

¶65

4.^{One CC to Sri Raiesh Kumar Herur' Advocate [OPUCI}

5.^{Two CD CoPie;}

dor

HIGH COURT

Dr. CSL,J

DATED:0411112022

ORDER

CRLP.No.274 of 20i¹

.<br>\fS rt'
,,a.;
(
4'9tr
d 1? lit ?m r/it
"4
\5,'ts:#Z

¶74

CRIMINAL PE'TITIO I IS ALLOWED

¶75

,"}<.I
././..
{

Toodi Bharat Ratna v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Toodi Bharat Ratna v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Majeed. Khan and another Vs State of Telangana

Chintapandu Naveen Kumar , Teenmar Mallanna Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Mohammed Manzoorus Salam Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Raavi Venkata Durga Prasad , Raavi Durga Prasad Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Puli Ashok Kumar Vs Katakam Rajalingu and 3 others

Venkata Lakshmi Devi and another Vs The State of Telangana and another