S. P. DAS GHOSH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application at the instance of the accused-petitioner, Saligram Ahir, is for quashing the proceedings of G. R. Case No. 1574 of 1978 (the case being subsequently numbered as G. R. 922 of (1979) pending in the court or learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fourteenth Court, Calcutta. ( 2 ) ON 24/6/78, a petition was filed in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for sending it to the 0. C. , Burrabazar P. 5. to investigate into the complaint under section 156 (3} Cr. P. C. That written petition contained allegation of offences under sections 448, 144, 1 50, 506, 427 and 114. i. P. C. That petitioner was sent by the learned Chief Metropolitant Magistrate, Calcutta on 24. 6. 78 to the O. C. , Burrabazar, P. S. for taking appropriate steps in accordance with law under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. On the basis of that petition, a F. I. R. was drawn up on 28/6/78 under Sees. 448/144/150/427/506/114. I. P. C. against the accusedpetitioner, Saligram Ahir, and four others. The accused-petitioner, Saligram, and two others were produced in custody in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 29/6/78 and were released on bail, Subsequently, challan was submitted by the police against the accused-petitioner on 26/3/79 under section 341, I. P. C. There was a prayer for discharge of the other accused persons of the case. Accordingly, four other accused persons were discharged on 26/3/79. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta took cognizance of the offence under See. 341, I. P. C. against the accused-petitioner on 26/3/79 and sent the case to Shri K. K. Kundu, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fourteenth Court, Calcutta for disposal. Four witnesses were examined and cross-examined in the case by 13/7/81 and the case was fixed for P. Ws. on 24/9/81. In the meantime, this revisional application has been filed for quashing the proceedings in the G. R. Case No. ]574 of 1978 on 21/9/81 on the ground that the cognizance taken in this case was not proper for violation of the mandatory provisions in section 167 (5), Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) MR. on 24/9/81. In the meantime, this revisional application has been filed for quashing the proceedings in the G. R. Case No. ]574 of 1978 on 21/9/81 on the ground that the cognizance taken in this case was not proper for violation of the mandatory provisions in section 167 (5), Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) MR. Sanyal, appearing for the accused, petitioner, bas argued that as the case was triable as a summons case and as the charge-sheet was submitted in this case on 26/3/79 after expiry of about nine months from 28/6/78, when the accused petitioner was arrested, with out any order of the learned Magistrate for continuation of investigation beyond the period of six months from the date of arrest of the accused-petitioner the cognizance taken by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta on 26. 3. 79 is illegal and the proceedings of the G. R. case are to be quashed. In support of this contention, Mr. Sanyal has referred to the case of Jay Sankar Jha v. State1 and the case of Ram Kumar v. State2 It is now well-settled, in view of these two Division Bench decisions of this Court, that where, in a summons case, the investigation continues beyond the period of six months from the date of arrest of the accused it is obligatory on the Magistrate to stop further investigation, even though no objection is raised in the matter by the accused. On the basis of these two Division Ben. ch decisions of this Court, the proceedings in the G. R. case No. 1574 of 1978 (the case being subsequently numbered as G. R. Case No. 922 of 1979) are to be quashed, provided the case was triable as a summons case when the petition under section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. was filed in the court of the learned Additional Chiief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 24/6/78. Mr. Sanyal has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar2 to the effect that so long as the initial investigation continues in respect of a case exclusively triable by a Magistrate as a summons case, section 167 (5), Cr. P. C. will operate even though subsequent investigation discloses that the case is a case triable under the warrant procedure. The contention of Mr. P. C. will operate even though subsequent investigation discloses that the case is a case triable under the warrant procedure. The contention of Mr. Sanyal is that in view of this Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram, Kumar2 the proceedings of the G. R. case are to be quashed, even though the challan has been filed subsequently in the case under section 341, I. P. C. This contention cannot be accepted. In the case of Ram Kumar3 the case, which was initially registered by the ponce under Sec. 8 of the West Bengal Anti-Profiteering Act, 1958, was triable as a summons case. Subsequently, in that case there was an application by, the Investigating Officer to add an offence, under section 7 (1) (a) (11) of the Essential Commodities Act. This application was allowed by the learned Magistrate. The accused of that Case was arrested on 23/12/78 and investigation of that case was not concluded within a period of six months from that date. As such, it was held in the case of Ram Kumar that subsequent disclosure of a case triable as a warrant case, Tduring investigation, does not alter the position that if the case, when at first registered by the police, was triable as a summons case, further investigation in the case was to be stopped by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the mandatory provision in section 167 (5), Cr. P. C. It was also held in the case of Ram Kumar that any direction for continuation of the investigation of such a case, initially triable as a summons case and subsequently turning out to be a warrant case during investigation, after the statutory period of six months mentioned in section 167 (5), Cr. P. C. , will be without jurisdiction. ( 4 ) THE facts of the case, of Ram Kumar are to be distinguished from the facts of the present case inasmuch as the petition filed on 24/6/78 under section 156 (3), Cr. P. contained allegations of criminal intimidation under section 506, I. P. C. As already stated the F. I. R. drawn up in this case on the basis of that petition, was, under section 448/144/1)0/427/506/114, I. P. C. The necessary averments regarding the alleged offence under section 506 I. P. C. made in paragraph 9, of that petition under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to the effect that the accused person, viz. , the accused- petitioner and others also formed an unlawful assembly on 20/6/78 to shout intimidating slogans against the owners and tenants of premises No. 153, Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta putting threats of assault, grievous hurt and even murder with clubs and daggers in hand, if any steps were taken against them in the court. ( 5 ) MR. Sanyal has referred to the case oft G. Chunder Sen v. Gour Chunder Banikya3 and has argued that on the basis of these averments in paragraph 9 of that petition under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. , no case under section 506 I. P. C. could be made out. It is argued, that as there is nothing to show that alleged threat mentioned in paragraph 9 of that petition was communicated to, ihe owners of premises No. 153, Robindra Sarani, Calcutta, no case under section 506 I. P. C. can stands This contention cannot be accepted on the basis of the petition under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the petition of complaint for the sake of convenience ). It is stated in paragraph 1 of the petition of complaint that the complainant, Sukla alias Mahua Ganguly fikd the complaint on behalf of the, owners of the premises No. 153, Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta. It is stated in paragraph 2 of the petition of complaint that the complainant had been duly authorised in writing to file the complaint. In paragraph9 of the petition of complaint, it is stated. that the complainant reported the unforeseen developments on the date, of the occurrence to the 0. C. , Burrabazar P. 5. In these circumstances, it cannot be stated at this stage without completion of recording of evidences as to whether the alleged threat mentioned in paragraph 9 of the petition of complaint was communicated or not to the owners of the premises No. 153, Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta. Section 506 I. P. C. consists of two parts. If a case falls under Part II to section 506 I. P. C, it will be a warrant case. Section 506 I. P. C. consists of two parts. If a case falls under Part II to section 506 I. P. C, it will be a warrant case. When there are averments in paragraph 9 of the petition of complaint about alleged threat to cause grievous hurt and even murder, the case, as initially registered by the police by drawing up the F. I. R. on the basis of the petition of complaint, cannot be stated to be a case triable as a summons case. It is a different thing altogether if, in the course of investigation of this case by the police, the police finds a prima facie case only under section 341, I. P. C. against the accused petitioner. The point of time to be considered for invoking the provisions of section 167 (5) Cr. P. C. in a police case is the time when the case is initially registered by the police and not the time when the challan or charge-sheet is submitted by the police after completing the in investigation in the case. As the case, initially registered by the police, was triable as a warrant case in view of inclusion of section, 506 I. P. C. in the F. I. R. on the basis of the averments in the petition of complaint, containing allegations so as to attract Part II to section 506 I. P. C. , the provisions of section 167 (5) Cr. P. C. cannot be attracted in the case for quashing the proceedings to the G. R. case No. 922 of 1979 for submission of challan in the case on 26/3/79 after the arrest of the accused petitioner on 28/6/78. ( 6 ) THE revisional application fails. The ad interim stay granted on, 21/9/1981 is vacated. The Rule is discharged.