JUDGMENT R.R. Prasad, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Opp. Parties No. 2 and learned Counsel appearing for the State. 2. This Cr. Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 15.05.2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 467 of 2005 whereby and whereunder leaned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad having been found prima facie case true under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, summoned the petitioners to face trial. 3. The facts giving rise this application is that the Complainant-Opp. Party No. 2 lodged a complaint case bearing No. 467 of 2005 stating therein that he being a Tax Daroga working under the N.A.C. (Notified Area Committee), Sindri was entrusted with a job of construction of P.C.C. Road from R.K. More Sindri to B.I.T. Club Sindri and for that purpose, he purchased certain construction materials from the petitioner No. 2 for which payment was made to him under the receipt from time to time, but after the job was over, the petitioner No. 2 in connivance with petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 prepared a forged paper, on the basis of which, they claimed Rs. 37,800/- due to be paid to them by the complainant and the other day they came to the Office, abused him and also extended threat and thus, it has been alleged that the accused persons by their acts put obstruction in discharge of their duties and also abused him and thereby committed offence under Sections 467, 468, 420, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Thereupon, statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation and the matter was taken up for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the court having been found prima facie true under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners. 5. Being aggrieved with that, the petitioners have moved this Court and has filed this Cr. Miscellaneous Petition. 6. Thereafter, the court having been found prima facie true under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners. 5. Being aggrieved with that, the petitioners have moved this Court and has filed this Cr. Miscellaneous Petition. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the entire allegations are false and as a matter of fact, certain materials were supplied to the complainant, when he was engaged in construction of a road but payment of the same was not made, though petitioner No. 2 repeatedly asked for the same and when payment was not made, the matter was reported to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sindri as well as Officer-in-Charge, Sindri, regarding non-payment of the legal due to him by the complainant and after making inquiry, the Police submitted report before the court, stating therein that it is true that the payment was not made to the petitioner No. 2 and in that event the petitioners have threatened the Opp. Party No. 2 and as such entire allegations what has been leveled in the complaint are not only false but also malicious and has been lodged with a view to escape liability from making payment to the petitioner No. 2. 7. The other limb of the submission is that the allegations leveled in the complaint as well as statement made by the complainant on solemn affirmation, do not constitute offence either under Sections 353 or 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 2 submits that the allegations leveled in the complaint do constitute offences under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as it is specific case that the accused persons did abuse and put obstruction in the discharge of the official duty and as such order taking cognizance does not warrant to be interfered with by this Court. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the only question falls for consideration as to whether the allegation is made in the complaint as well as statement made by the complainant on solemn affirmation does constitute offence either under Sections 353 or 506 of the Indian Penal Code? 10. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the only question falls for consideration as to whether the allegation is made in the complaint as well as statement made by the complainant on solemn affirmation does constitute offence either under Sections 353 or 506 of the Indian Penal Code? 10. Before going further in the matter, provision as contained under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code needs to be taken notice of, which reads as follows: Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both 11. From its bare perusal, it would be clear that one commits offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, if he dues assault or uses a criminal force to any public servant in the execution of his duty with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharge his duty. 12. It is never the case of the complainant that he was assaulted by the accused persons rather it is the case that the accused persons came to the Office and abused him and also extended threat but the question would be as to whether such abuse or threat would amount to criminal force. Criminal force has been defined under Section 350 of the Indian penal Code, which reads as follows: Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that persons consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other Having noticed the aforesaid provision, it does appear that one can be said to have used force against another, if he caused motion, change of motion or cessation of motion to that other. Therefore, mere use of force however, is not enough to bring an act within the terms of under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. Not only that it is to be established further that force was used intentionally to any person in order to commit offence or with the intention or with the knowledge that the use of force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person against whom the force is used. 13. Taking into consideration this proposition of law, if the allegations leveled in the complaint is taken notice of, it would appear that the accused persons have never been alleged to have used any force and in that event, no offence is made out under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Regarding applicability or non-applicability of the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on the face of the allegation made in the complaint, one needs to take notice of the provision, as contained under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows: Whoever, threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation 15. The most important ingredients of the offence of the criminal intimidation, as defined under Section 503 of the Indian penal Code is that there should be intention to cause alarm or to cause the person threatened to do any act which he is not legally bound to do. Mere hurling of abuse or threat extended by the accused persons to the complainant that they will ruin him would not cause any alarm, as the same would not give any reasonable feeling to the complainant that the accused is going to do that and that he would convert his words into action causing any injury to his person, reputation or property. 16. 16. Thus, necessary ingredients, which do constitute offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, seem to be lacking in the case and, therefore, cognizance taken under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners is quite bad. 17. In the circumstances, as stated above, the impugned order dated 15.05.2006, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 467 of 2005 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed. In the result, this Cr. Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.