Judgment : PRATAP SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE accused in S. T. C. No. 2551/90 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Kuzhithurai, have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the proceedings. ( 2 ) SHORT facts arc: The respondent filed charge sheet against the petitioners for offences under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (1) I. P. C. The allegations in the charge sheet arc that, on 27. 9. 1990 at 6. 30 a. m. at Ananvilai Ammankoil, accused 1 and 2 had talked about witness No. 1 in a defamatory manner and also threatened that they would do away the family of witness No. 1 and had also throttled his neck. ( 3 ) MR. Paul Vasanthakumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that (i) The allegations in the F. I. R, in the statement given under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and in the charge sheet are to the effect that accused 1 and 2 had talked Tamil word against witness No. 1 and that the word Tamil word cannot be equated to obscene words and that the uttering of obscene words is the sine quo non for making out an offence under Section 294 (b) I. P. C. and so, it is liable to be quashed, and (ii) the allegations in the F. I. R. in the statement and in the charge sheet with reference to Section 506 (1) I. P. C. are not sufficient to make out the offence and hence it is liable to be quashed with regard to this offence also. (iii) The occurrence was on 27. 9. 1990. F. I. R. was given on 28. 9. 1990. But, it was sent to court on 5. 10. 1990. Charge sheet was prepared on the date of F. I. R. it self, but it was filed in High Court only on 11. 12. 1990. In view of the above, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. 1 have heard Mr. Raja, learned Government Advocate, on the above aspects. ( 4 ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsels. I shall consider the submissions in seriatim. Regarding the first submission, as pointed out by Mr. 12. 1990. In view of the above, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. 1 have heard Mr. Raja, learned Government Advocate, on the above aspects. ( 4 ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsels. I shall consider the submissions in seriatim. Regarding the first submission, as pointed out by Mr. Paul Vasanthakumar, the allegations are only to the effect that accused 1 and 2 had talked about the witness No. 1 Tamil word. It is not stated what were the words uttered. The word Tamil word is as vague as anything. I am clear that the mere allegation Tamil word cannot be equated to obscenet words. So, regarding the offence under Section 294 (b) I. P. C. , the F. I. R. is liable to be quashed. Regarding the offence under Section 506 (1) I. P. C. , it is necessary to state the relevant allegations in the F. I. R. , in the statement and in the charge sheet. In the F. I. R. it is stated that the accused had told witness No. 1 that they had intended to murder his son, but he escaped and that they are going to do away his entire family and that so saying they throttled his neck and attempted to murder him. The same statement is repeated in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. That has been again stated in the charge sheet. Section 506 I. P. C. reads as follows:punishment for criminal intimidation. Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt etc. and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastely to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. The allegations, which I have referred to supra, would bring the case within the ambit of Section 506 (1) I. P. C. Hence, I am unable to accept the second submission made by Mr. Paul Vasanthakumar. ( 5 ) REGARDING the third submission, that is the matter which can be gone into only at the time of trial and hence, it cannot be considered at the threshold ( 6 ) IN view of the above, the petition is allowed in part and all further proceedings in S. T. C. No. 2551/90 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kuzhithurai, with regard to the offence under Section 294 (b) I. P. C. shall stand quashed. The case will stand with regard to the offence under, Section 506 (1) I. P. C. and the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously with regard to the offence under Section 506 (1) I. P. C. Petition allowed partly.