Order This is a petition under Sec.482, Criminal Procedure Code to call for the first information report in Crime No.275 of 1988, on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nagapatti-nam, registered by the respondent, and quash the same. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition can now be stated. The petitioner appears to be a contractor in Pondicherry and Tamil Nadu apart from being an owner of a rice mill and a merchant running several business organisations. It appears that at 1.30 p.m., on 19-3-1988, when he was conversing with his wife and brother in his house, suddenly ten persons came in a standard van stopped it in front of the house, entered into his house, after some of them firing shots in the air to threaten the petitioner. Though resisted, it is the case of the petitioner that he was forcibly taken in the van from Kottuchery to Vedaranyam, during which travel, enroute his watch and chain were snatched way by the offending group. The petitioner was taken, at Vedaranyam, initially to the house of one Kulandaivelu and later to the police station. Only at the police station, the petitioner came to know that the persons who attacked him were policemen under the leadership of Shanmugam, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam. The petitioner has his own grievance about the said arrest and his production before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nagapattinam the next day and his being made an accused in Crime No.153 of 1988 on the file of the Vedaranyam Police Station, regarding which we are not concerned in this petition. After release on bail, the petitioner noticed inside the compound of his house, some small cartridges, leading to his report to the local police, who had registered Crime No.24 of 1988 after recovering those cartridges. The petitioner appears to have complained to all higher authorities regarding the acts of Shanmugam and his group of police officials, on what the petitioner claims to be illegal action resorted to. 3. The petitioner appears to have complained to all higher authorities regarding the acts of Shanmugam and his group of police officials, on what the petitioner claims to be illegal action resorted to. 3. It is in this background, that on 23-4-1988 at about 1.15 p.m., the said Shanmugam the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam had registered Crime No.275 of 1988 on the file of his police station against the petitioner for an offence under Sec.506(ii), I.P.C. Shanmugam, the Sub-Inspector of Police, on 23-4-1988 found in the post box in the police station an undated, unsigned letter addressed to him posted at Chidambaram on 9-4-1988 and received at Vedaranyam on 11-4-1988 containing the following information. The information in the said inland letter translated into English will read as follows: “I am a close relative of Nalamaharaja of Karaikal Kottuchery. It seems that you had arrested him last month and put him to shame. For that action of yours, he has decided to kill you. To Kill you within one week, he has engaged rowdy elements and has paid them Rs.10,000 as advance. Since, 1 am a close relation of Nalamaharaja and being afraid that in consequence of any harm to you, he should not suffer any punishment, I am beseeching you in advance to be careful. Though I had pursuaded him (Nalamaharaja) to stop this proposed act, he would not listen. Therefore, at least you be careful. I do not want to divulge my name and get in to problems.” 4. Shanmugam, the Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of this letter, on the averments found therein registered it as Crime No.275/88 for an offence under Sec.506-II I.P.C., against the petitioner and since he was directly concerned, forwarded the crime for investigation to the Inspector of Police, Crimes. 5. To stop the investigation and quash the said first information report, this petition has been filed, seeking to invoke the inherent power of this Court. 6. Thiru. 5. To stop the investigation and quash the said first information report, this petition has been filed, seeking to invoke the inherent power of this Court. 6. Thiru. M.Karpagavinayagam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that (a) the anonymous letter which is the basis for the registration of the crime does not make out the offence of criminal intimidation much less any other offence, for the essential ingredients are lacking; (b) the attributes and characteristics of a first information report are not apparent in the said letter to vest jurisdiction in the police to set the law in motion; (c) an offence under Sec.506 II, I.P.C, is not cognizable and even if the offence is cognizable, the information which forms the basis of the first information report must be signed by the person who makes it, which signature is admittedly absent in this case. Further the author of the F.I.R., is also not known. 7. According to the learned counsel, the letter contains a cryptic message which should not have been treated as the first information report and hence there was no scope for investigation, which has necessitated prayer to quash all proceedings arising out of the registration of the first information report. In the process of arguments, he would refer to Secs.573, 574, 576 and 578 of the Madras Police Standing Orders and point out the dicta laid down in K.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab K.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1960 S.C.368 A.I.R. 1958 Mad.368: 1958 M.N.N. 54. 8. Per contra, Thiru T.Munirathinam Naidu learned Government Advocate countered the arguments and submitted that this petition was premature, while the investigation had been taken over by an independent officer, which investigation itself had been stayed by this Court, at the instance of the petitioner making it impossible to place any further material before this Court. He further contended that by a State amendment, the offence under Sec.506 II I.P.C., had been made cognizable (vide G.O.No.S/41 18-1/70 Public (S.C) Department, dated 3-8-1970). 9. Let me now consider the sustain ability of these submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Before venturing to do that, a few more facts may have to be stated. He further contended that by a State amendment, the offence under Sec.506 II I.P.C., had been made cognizable (vide G.O.No.S/41 18-1/70 Public (S.C) Department, dated 3-8-1970). 9. Let me now consider the sustain ability of these submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Before venturing to do that, a few more facts may have to be stated. Shanmugam, Sub-Inspector of Police, after registering the crime had made an endorsement in the first information report about the details of Crime No.153/88 leading to the arrest of the petitioner on 19-3-1988and the secret information he had received about the threats of the petitioner to do away with him, coupled with the receipt of the letter which necessitated registration of the crime for an offence under Sec.506-II, I.P.C., and forwarding it for investigation to the higher authorities, in view of his being the victim of intimidation. When this fact was stated by the learned Government Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the certified copy of the first information report furnished to him by the Court, did not have this endorsement made by Shanmugam and hence, there was malafides in the very registration of the crime. The background for the registration of this crime divergently put forth by the petitioner and the respondent, furnishes a double edged motive. Nothing more could be said at this juncture, when the investigation at its nascent stage, had been stayed at the instance of the petitioner. The fact that in Tamil Nadu Sec.506-II, I.P.C., is a cognizable offence would permit action under Sec.154, Criminal Procedure Code on receipt of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. That Shanmugam, would fit in as an officer in charge of a Police Station, defined in Sec.2 (O) of the Criminal Procedure Code can admit of no doubt If the said Shanmugam had received information, which disclosed a cognizable offence prima facie his having acted under Sec.154, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be a cause for any complaint, though two aspects may have to be considered at this stage. One is the legality of the registration of the crime by Shanmugam when he himself is the victim of the offence referred to in the anonymous letter and second if the averments in the anonymous letter and the F.I.R., registered thereon disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence containing all the necessary ingredients of such an offence. One is the legality of the registration of the crime by Shanmugam when he himself is the victim of the offence referred to in the anonymous letter and second if the averments in the anonymous letter and the F.I.R., registered thereon disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence containing all the necessary ingredients of such an offence. We cannot overlook that the purpose of Sec.154, Criminal Procedure Code is to provide one of the modes of setting the law in motion. The information contemplated under Sec.154, Criminal Procedure Code will include any message which contains all the ingredients of the first information report permitting it being treated as such. That information or message must contain the facts disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence. The signature in the complaint contemplated under Sec.154, Criminal Procedure Code is intended to guarantee its correctness and to discourage irresponsible statements. The absence of signature in an anonymous letter even if it could be deemed, as a failure to sign the first information report, it may affect the credibility of the first information report but cannot prevent any investigation. It cannot be lost sight of that the first information report is not substantive evidence. The credibility to be attached or the limit to which it would be admissible, may have to be decided during trial. I find that the first information report has been signed by Shanmugam enclosing therewith the inland letter and to my mind there appears to be nothing erroneous in this procedure, atleast prima facie, since the first information report need not always have to be preferred by a person who has first hand knowledge of the facts. It is possible to comprehend that in view of the particulars contained in the inland letter along with the postal seals, the author could in all possibility be traced during investigation to substantiate his having posted the letter to Shanmugam. It will not be impossible to have the inland letter authenticated by the author thereof during investigation, even if the letter had to be treated as the F.I.R. This F.I.R., has been signed by Shanmugam and relates to secret messages during investigation of the earlier crime which when coupled with this anonymous letter, had led to the registration of the crime. It may be that the first information report could have been registered by some other station house officer, but failure to follow such a procedure by Shanmugam does not, to my mind, make the first information report inadmissible, provided the object of Sec.154, Criminal Procedure Code is kept in mind, to have the earliest point of time information about the alleged criminal activity, so as to facilitate suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party. Sec.154, Criminal Procedure Code, further safeguards against embellishment or forgetfulness since, the earliest information is made available to the Judicial Officer and further the higher police officials are also kept informed. 10. Therefore, even if it be taken that the registration of the crime by Shanmugam may be irregular, in view of comments of mala fides, I do not think that on that score, the first information report and the investigation, will have to be quashed. 11. Now let me turn to the consideration of the ingredients of the offence under Sec.506-II, I.P.C., and such ingredients being attracted or not, on the averments in the first information report, of which the inland letter forms an integral part. 12. In criminal intimidation, the immediate purpose is to induce the person threatened to do or abstain from doing something which he was not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which that person was legally entitled to do and the intent must be that the contemplated threat, must cause alarm to that person. The gist of the offence is the effect, which the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person so threatened. On the facts narrated above the contemplation under Sec.506-II, I.P.C., appear to have been fulfilled. The next question would be, if the threat must be made directly to the victim or if it would be sufficient if i t reached him so long as the intent is the contemplated threat. At this stage, only the intent of the maker of the threat alone needs consideration, which on facts could be gathered from the words said to have been uttered and the steps taken in furtherance thereof. At this stage, only the intent of the maker of the threat alone needs consideration, which on facts could be gathered from the words said to have been uttered and the steps taken in furtherance thereof. Prima facie at this stage, one cannot say that the threat must be directly made to the victim, for, it is possible to conceive communication to the victim in some way which could have the effect upon the mind of the person so threatened, for the purpose of influencing his mind. 13. Therefore, on the totality of the facts, the approach by the petitioner to have the F.I.R. quashed is absolutely premature. If there is any further addition in the first information report resulting in prejudice to the case of the petitioner that would be a matter for appreciation of evidence during trial. There can be no dispute to the proposition that in sparing instances, the F.I.R. could be quashed when the allegations on their face value, accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, making it manifestly unjust to allow the process of criminal trial. It cannot also be overlooked that the exercise of the inherent power to quash the F.I.R., when prima facie material was available and relief is sought even before the police had commenced investigation and when no proceedings are pending in court, would not be justifiable. The reference to A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 868, can have no relevances in the background of my observation aforementioned. In A.I.R. 1958 Madras 368: 1958 M.W.N. 54, the consideration arose in an appeal against conviction and it makes all the difference when the quashing is sought at the threshold. The reference to the Police Standing Orders are only appendages to Section 154, Criminal Procedure Code and in the light of the view, I have taken specific reference to the Police Standing Orders may not loom large. 14. In view of my discussion aforementioned, this petition is dismissed. However, the observations I have made in this order cannot be taken to the prejudice of the petitioner either during the investigation or in the event of a trial arising out of this crime. B.S. ----- Petition dismissed.