JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - In this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure Petitioners,who are the accused persons in I.C.C. No. 13/93 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Sundargarh pray to quash the order of cognizance by setting aside the order dated 23-2-1995. 2. This litigation has a chequered career and few relevant facts are stated below. 14780 of 1999 and O.J.C. Nos. 173, 211, 247, 463, 689, 712, 724, 1243, 1656, 1694, 1872 and 2639 of 2000 Complainant filed the complaint petition on 23-2-93, alleging commission of the offences under Sections 352/427/447/ 500/504/506/34, I.P.C. by the Petitioners. The substance of the complainant's allegation is that there is a big patch of Government land which situates adjoining the premises of the parties and their neighbours. Another house and premises situate between the premises of the opposite party and the Petitioners. Almost all such premises holder have encroached upon and amalgamated the strip of Government land adjoining their premises. The owner of the house which situates between the houses and premises of the parties, however, did not occupy the strip of Government land behind his house and the opposite party occupied the same. Petitioners having a lofty eye over that land created dispute with the opposite party. It is allegod that on 23-1-1993 the Petitioners came and created a scene of terror, disuaded and drove away by use of force the workers working on that plot, challenged the complainant, abused with intimidation on him and also did not hesitate to damage the property and showed the gesture and posture of assault. Learned S.D. J.M. after recording the initial statement and statements of witnesses in an enquiry u/s 202, Cr. P.C., on 23-3-93, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 447/427/294/500/506/323/34 and 511, 1. P.C. and issued process. As against that Petitioners approached this Court in Criminal Revision No. 218/93. On 6.9-93, while dismissing that revision, this Court observed that the Petitioners may agitate the matter in the Court of S.D.J.M.. Thereafter, Petitioners filed application in the court below with the prayer to recall the cognizance order. Learned S.D.J M. on 18.1-1994 passed an order reiterating existance of prima facie case as per the previous order of cognizance. Then Petitioners again approached this Court in Criminal Revision No. 126/94 challenging the order dated 18.1-94 of the learned S.D.J.M.. Thereafter, Petitioners filed application in the court below with the prayer to recall the cognizance order. Learned S.D.J M. on 18.1-1994 passed an order reiterating existance of prima facie case as per the previous order of cognizance. Then Petitioners again approached this Court in Criminal Revision No. 126/94 challenging the order dated 18.1-94 of the learned S.D.J.M.. On 25.10-94, this Court set aside the order dated 18-1-94 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the matter relating to taking of cognizance and in that respect this Court held that the bar u/s 362 is not a prohibition for the Magistrate to reconsider the matter relating to recalling the order of cognizance and in that context this Court referred to the ratio in the case of K.M. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala and another, After that learned S.D.J. M. heard both the parties and passed the impugned order dated 23-2-95 in taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 447/427/500/504/506/34, I.P.C. on the ground that prima facie case exists with respect to comitting of those offences. He, however, recalled the order of cognizance for the offences under Sections 294/323/511, 1. P.C. on the ground of non-existence of prima facie case. Petitioners, thereafter, have filed this revision with a prayer to quash the aforesaid order of cognizance. 3. It appears from the lower court record and the impugned order that by the time of hearing on the matter to examine correctness of the cognizance order, since the Petitioners raised a question relating to factum of title and possession of the opposite party over the land on which the occurrence took place, to further strengthen his case and to keep the Petitioners replyless, the opposite party filed certain documents and the same was taken into consideration by learned S.D. J.M. in spite of the objection raised by the Petitioners. Thus the foremost ground which learned Counsel for the Petitioners puts forward is that learned S.D. J.M. committed illegality in relying upon such documents though this Court in the remand order (in. Criminal Revision No. 126 of 1994) had not directed the S.D. J.M. to entertain or accept additional evidence to consider the question of existence or non-existance of prima facie case. He, thus, argues that the matter be remitted back to the court below to consider the question afresh but without taking aid of additional materials. 4. Criminal Revision No. 126 of 1994) had not directed the S.D. J.M. to entertain or accept additional evidence to consider the question of existence or non-existance of prima facie case. He, thus, argues that the matter be remitted back to the court below to consider the question afresh but without taking aid of additional materials. 4. Above contention is correct to the extent that learned S.D. J.M.. should not have taken aid of the documents to find existance of prima facie case relating to the factum of possession inasmuch as the order of taking cognizance was challenged on the ground of not constituting a prima facie case from the statements made available during the enquiry u/s 202, Cr. P.C.. At the same time, this Court should not loose sight of the fact that the complaint which was lodged in 1993 is running from the pillar to the post centering round the dispute whether a prima facie case is made out from the materials available in the L.C.R. so as to issue process against the Petitioners. The above narrated facts and circumstances couple with the present prayer for remand of the case go to show that dominant intention of the Petitioners is to stall the criminal proceeding by risorting to technicalities in various manners. Remand of the case may be an easy remedy for the Petitioner but in the present case it is an unnecessary barassment to the opposite party. When the comrovertial point regarding existance or non-existance of a prima facie case can be properly examined and decided by perusing the statements of the complainant and his witnesses there is no necessity to remand the case again to the lower Court. Order for remand should be made when there is a necessity for the same and not because one of the parties prefers that. Order of remand also should not be passed with a view to avoid deciding a case or with a view to dispose of a case. Such a temperament is against the interest of justice and the adjudicaters i. e. the Judges and Magistrates at various level, should not resort to such subterfuge. 5. Order of remand also should not be passed with a view to avoid deciding a case or with a view to dispose of a case. Such a temperament is against the interest of justice and the adjudicaters i. e. the Judges and Magistrates at various level, should not resort to such subterfuge. 5. When cognizance of an offence can be taken is not a matter of controvercy because of the settled position of law that if the materials available in the case prove commission of the offence or offences complained of by satisfying the ingredients of such offence or offences, as the case may be. At that stage, a prima facie view of such statements and evidence should be taken in reaching at the finding regarding existance of prima facie case. The cognizance taking Magistrate, with due application of mind, may find out if the allegations are inherently improbable or absurd and in such cases notwithstanding a parraot like statement of the complainant and his witnesses, the cognizance taking Magistrate may refuse to take cognizance by delivering a speaking order. At the time of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is not required to make detail documentation or elaborate discussion of the materials. A non-speaking order at that stage is permissible. All that is required to be done by him is to go through the materials in the case diary or the statements available in the complaint case, apply his analytical judicial mind to find out if a prima facie case is made out and to pass appropriate order in the manner indicated above. Once that duty is performed by the Magistrate lawfully and dutifully, it is not open to the Superior Court like the Court of Sessions and the High Court to interfere with the order of cognizance unless there exists any illegality. The above principle is well settled by this Court and the Apex Court in various reported decisions and for instance see the case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, . 6. When the matter is taken thus for consideration as to whether there exists a prima facie case for the offences of which cognizance has been taken vide the impugned order, learned Counsel for the opposite party wholeheartedly supports that order. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, . 6. When the matter is taken thus for consideration as to whether there exists a prima facie case for the offences of which cognizance has been taken vide the impugned order, learned Counsel for the opposite party wholeheartedly supports that order. On the other hand learned Counsel for the Petitioner argues that there is no prima facie evidence to take cognizance of the offence u/s 506, 1. P.C.. In other words, at the stage of argument, Petitioners do not challenge the impugned order in which learned S.D.J.M. has taken cognizance of other offences (as noted earlier). Be that, as it may, after perusal of the statements of the complainant and the witnesses this Court finds that the aforesaid concession made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is a wise one because prima facie materials exists for taking cognizance of the offences punishable u/s 447, 427, 500, 504 read with Section 34, I.P.C. 7. The other offence of which cognizance has been taken is the offence u/s 506, I.P. C.. As noted above, learned Counsel for the Petitioners argues that a prima facie case does not exist to take cognizance of that offence but he does not elaborate the argument beyond that. He does not state anything i beyond that as to how a prima facie case is lacking. None the less when a contention, in the afor,esaid manner, has been raised, that should be properly considered. Section 503, I.P. C. defines the offence, of 'Criminal intimidation' and Section 506 provides for the punishment thereof. On a bare perusal of the said provisions it emerges that to constitute an offence of Criminal intimidation the following ingredients are essential: 1. Threatening a person with any injury to-(a) his person, reputation or property, or (b) the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested. 2. Threat must be with the intent to- (a) cause alarm to that person, or (b) cause the person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, or (c) cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. On perusal of the statement of the complainant, it reveals that he has alleged that not only the Petitioners threatened and by show of force damage the on going construction and drove away the labourers but also by that act they caused injury to his reputation and property with the intention to cause alarm so as to deprive the Petitioner to possess the property. Hence a prima facie case for the offence u/s 506 is squarely made out. 8. For the reasons indicated above the impugned order is not liable to be disturbed. Hence the Criminal Revision is dismissed. Learned S.D. J.M. is directed to take up the further proceeding in the complaint case promptly and as far as practicable, at the stage of trial, day today trial be perused if there shall be no impeachment in that respect. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed