COMMON & ORDER : 1. Challenging the proceedings in C.C.No.6099 of 2016 on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, the present petitions are filed. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.12.2015, the Chairman of the St. John's Ambulance had received a phone call from the first accused threatening for the action taken by all the three petitioners herein. In view of the phone threat, the case came to be registered in FIR No.3999 of 2015 and after investigation, charge sheet has been laid against the said Mahalingam along with the petitioners herein, for offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) r/w.109 IPC. 3. Heard Mr. Shanmugavelayutham, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6367 of 2017 and Mr. C. Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf the respondent police. 4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6367 of 2017 submitted that the said offences have not been made out as against these petitioners herein and hence sought for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.6099 of 2016 on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the offences are made out in view of the fact that the phone call was at the instigation of the petitioners herein. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels. 7. The petitioners herein have been arrayed as the second, third and fourth accused in the impugned charge sheet. It is not in dispute that the phone call received by the Chairman of St. John's Ambulance through one Suba Ilavarasan, was made by the first accused, who is not the petitioner herein. None of the witnesses, who have given the statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., have stated that these petitioners had caused threat to the Chairman of St. John's Ambulance. 8. In order to attract the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC are concerned, the reciting of obscene words or causing threat should be made by some individual and the offence gets attracted only against that individual. In the present case, it is alleged that the obscene words and threat was caused only by the first accused and that the accused 2 to 4/petitioners herein did not have any role to play in it. In the present case, it is alleged that the obscene words and threat was caused only by the first accused and that the accused 2 to 4/petitioners herein did not have any role to play in it. As such, these two offences may not be attracted, as against these petitioners herein. 9. Insofar as the offence of abetment is concerned, neither the complainant nor had any of the witnesses spoken that the petitioners herein had instigated or engaged or intentionally aided the first accused for having caused the threat or using obscene language over the phone. The witnesses only speak about the first accused of having spoken over the phone stating that none should interfere into the affairs of the petitioners herein. This statement cannot be taken as an instigation or a conspiracy of these petitioners to make threatening call or can it be deemed to be intentionally aiding the first accused to make the phone call. As such, it can only be concluded that the offence of abetment punishable under Section 109 IPC also has not been made out, insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned. 10. In the result, the Criminal Original Petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.6099 of 2016 on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai stands quashed, insofar as it relates to the petitioners herein are concerned. It is made clear that the trial Court shall proceed with the proceedings as against the first accused. Consequently, the Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.