ORDER : 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings thereof now pending as S.C. No. 323/2016 on the files of the Sessions Court, Thalassery, arose out of Crime No. 489/2014 of Edakkad Police Station, Kannur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused Annexure A2 final report along with the relevant documents form part of the case diary. 3. The prosecution allegation in precise form is that the parents and the grandfather of a minor child, taken the minor child to Muzhappilangad Drive in Beach, under the management of Tourism Department, and then they allowed the minor to have parasailing with an intend to create mental stress to the child. On this premise, crime registered and investigated. Finally, A2 final report was filed alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 2000’). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the entire allegations are false and even going by the entire materials, there is no offence under Section 23 of the Act, 2000. He also submitted that petitioners being the parents and grandfather, allowed the minor child to have parasailing with a bona-fide intention to stimulate the child and they never intended to create any unnecessary mental or physical suffering to the minor in any manner. Therefore, the entire criminal proceedings are unwarranted and the same deserve quashment. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor though formally supported the final report, he also did not seriously oppose the factual aspects pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 6. In order to address whether the prayer in the petition is to be allowed, it is necessary to extract Section 23 of the Act, 2000. The same reads as under: “23. The learned Public Prosecutor though formally supported the final report, he also did not seriously oppose the factual aspects pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 6. In order to address whether the prayer in the petition is to be allowed, it is necessary to extract Section 23 of the Act, 2000. The same reads as under: “23. Punishment for cruelty to juvenile or child - Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or wilfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.” 7. On a perusal of the statutory wordings, assaults, abandons, exposes or wilfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures the juvenile to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause unnecessary mental or physical suffering is an offence. So, in order to bring home an offence punishable under Section 23 of the Act, 2000, the above acts should be one either to cause or likely to cause mental or physical suffering to the minor. Any act/acts which would not either cause or likely to cause mental or physical suffering is not an offence. Here, the place of occurrence itself is a beach and the intent behind taking a child to a beach is to provide happiness to the child. Children often expresses happiness through a sense of wonder, innocence, exposition and playfulness. They can find joy in simple things - by playing with toys, exploring the world around them, and spending time with loved ones. When a child is taken to a beach, the intention of the parents or somebody having actual charge or control over the minor, is obviously to provide opportunity to the minor to explore the world and its wonders to assimilate positive emotions and life satisfaction, unless contrary intention is specifically made out. Here, the petitioners, having control over the minor, reached the beach along with the minor to have happiness during leisure. While enjoying the seashore exposure to absorb positive energy, the minor was allowed to have parasailing. Here, the petitioners, having control over the minor, reached the beach along with the minor to have happiness during leisure. While enjoying the seashore exposure to absorb positive energy, the minor was allowed to have parasailing. In fact, the intention of the petitioners is nothing but to provide happiness to the minor and not to cause or likely to cause unnecessary mental or physical suffering to the minor, since no such intention is otherwise to be gathered. 8. On going through the materials, it could not be held prima facie that the petitioners intended to cause or were likely to cause unnecessary mental or physical suffering to the child in any manner by allowing the minor to have parasailing. In such a case, the available materials did not constitute an offence punishable under Section 23 of Act, 2000. 9. Holding so, this petition stands allowed and Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in S.C. No. 323/2016 on the files of the Sessions Court, Thalassery, arising out of Crime No. 489/2014 of Edakkad Police Station, Kannur, stand quashed.