Judgment :- Learned counsel for he petitioners submits that he is not pressing this petition insofar as petitioners land 2 are concerned. He has also made an endorsement in the bundle to that effect. In view of he same, this petition in respect of petitioners land 2/A2 and A3 are dismissed as not pressed. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been implicated for the alleged offence under Section 506 (ii) of IPC alone. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is an allegation to the effect of cheating under Section 420 of IPC only against A1 to A3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as far as petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned, there is only a vague and bald allegation of threatening made against them and as such they are entitled to the relief of quashing the first information report. He also submitted that the third petitioner, viz., A4 is going to be appointed as a Government Teacher and due to the pending of the first information report, she has been put into great hardship and irreparable loss. 3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) contended that totally there are five accused in this case and the petitioners have been arrayed as A2 to A5. it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that there are allegations levelled against them. It is further contended that as far as petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned, they have been implicated only for the alleged offence under Section 506 (ii) of IPC. 4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the impugned first information report in this case. 5. A perusal of the first information report discloses that there is a definite and specific allegation levelled only against A1 and other accused, viz., A2 and A3 to some extent. It is seen that specific allegation of cheating is made only against A1. A1 is said to have received a sum of Rs.41,000/- from the defector complainant. The defector complainant by pledging her five sovereign jewels for Rs.11,000/-including a cash of a sum of Rs.30,000/- totalling to Rs.41,000/-paid to A1 but he has not returned the said amount. It is seen that specific allegation of cheating is made only against A1. A1 is said to have received a sum of Rs.41,000/- from the defector complainant. The defector complainant by pledging her five sovereign jewels for Rs.11,000/-including a cash of a sum of Rs.30,000/- totalling to Rs.41,000/-paid to A1 but he has not returned the said amount. When the defacto complainant, went to A1 and demanded to return her amount, instead of retuning the amount, she was abused and threatened by the other accused A perusal of the first information report further discloses that there is no definite and specific allegation leveled against petitioners 3 and 4, who are arrayed as A4 and A5 in this case and there is only a vague and bald allegation. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner also rightly placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 1989 Cri L.J. 669 (Noble Mohandass Vs. State). In para 7 of the said judgment, this Court has held as follows: “7. As far as the offence under Section 506 (2) is concerned, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the threat was not a real one, that it was of the kind of words which are currently and frequently used by people when they are angry and that further the threat was not spoken to by PW3 and PW4 who by that time had already come to the scene of occurrence. It is, in fact, found from the records that the threat would have been lashed out after P.Ws.3 and 4 came to the place and separated both the husband and wife. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 should have been corroborated by the evidence of PW3 and PW4 who were necessary witnesses to the occurrence. Since they did not corroborate the testimony of PW1, in this aspect, the offence cannot be held to be proved. Further for being an offence under Section 506 (2) which is rather an important offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the person uttering it does exactly mean what he says and also when the person at whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. In fact PW1 when she filed the complaint to the police officer, did not express any fear for her life nor asked for any protection. Therefore, the offence under S.506 (2) is not made out.” 7. This Court is of the considered view that the decision of this Court in the above said judgment squarely applicable to the case on hand as in this case also, there is certain vague and bald allegation threatening made against petitioner 3 and 4, who have been arrayed as A4 and A5. 8. In view of the above, this Court is constrained to quash the first information report pending in Crime No.103 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Poolampatti Police Station, Salem District in So far as petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned. It is open to the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation in respect of the remaining accused in this case. 9. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is pertly allowed.