JUDGMENT R.N.LADDHA, J. - Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the petitioner seeks the quashing of the F.I.R. No.51/2020, dtd. 27/3/2020, registered against him at Calangute Police Station, at the instance of the respondent No.3, on the ground that the ingredients of Ss. 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) are not at all satisfied on the basis of the allegations made in the said complaint. 3. The complainant Vishal Mandrekar, Police Sub-Inspector attached to Calangute Police Station, the respondent No.3 herein, lodged a report against the petitioner at the said Police Station on 27/3/2020, which is reproduced verbatim as below:- " Shri Vishal J. Mandrekar, Police Sub Inspector, Calangute Police Station, Dated:- 27/03/2020. To, The Police Inspector, Calangute Police Station, Calangute-Goa. Sub:- Complaint against Mr. Sunny Pandey @ Surya S/o Krishnakant Pandey for threatening me while performing my lawful duties. Sir, I, Shri Vishal J. Mandrekar, Police Sub Inspector attached to Calangute Police Station, do hereby lodge my complaint against Mr. Sunny Pandey @ Surya S/o Krishnakant Pandey, as under: To-day i.e. on 27/03/2020 I was deployed for Nakabandi duty at Dolphin Circle, Naikavaddo, Calangute between 14.00 hours to 22.00 hours along with staff comprising (1) PC-5456, Pandurang Samant, (2) PC-7301 Ratnakar Mandrekar both of Calangute Police Station and ASI Anil Talekar of Traffic Cell, Calangute in view of Health Emergency, "Total India Lock Down" declared by the Government of India in view of COVID-19. While we were performing our Nakabandi duty, at 17.10 hours one red colour Mercedes car bearing registration No. GA-03-Y-9753 driven by one male person came at the Nakabandi point from Calangute side and was trying to proceed towards Saligao. We had erected barricades on the road and said car was stopped by the staff in order to enquire as to where he is going. I asked the driver as to where he is going. Driver questioned me saying in Hindi language, "Age kya hai voh dikhyi nahi deta? likha hai vo pado" (Can't you see what is in front? Read what is written*). I asked the driver as to where he is going. Driver questioned me saying in Hindi language, "Age kya hai voh dikhyi nahi deta? likha hai vo pado" (Can't you see what is in front? Read what is written*). I told him to talk politely wherein he replied saying, "Vishal mai janta hu tum koun hai our tum nahi jante mai koun hu" (Vishal, I know who you are and you do not know who I am*). I asked him as to who is he. He replied me saying, "Tumhare PI se pucho, mai koun hu, phone karo tumhare PI ko, mai dhayisou policewalonko khana deta hu, mera naam Sunny Pandey hai" (Ask your P.I. as to who I am, phone your P.I., I feed 250 police personnel, my name is Sunny Pandey*). I again told him to talk politely when he threatened me saying, "Tumne mujhe rok ke bahut badi galti ki, abi tumko dikhata hu, mai kya karta hu" (You made a great blunder by obstructing my way, I will show you just now what I will do*). I asked him as to whether he is threatening me, when he replied, "Ha" (Yes*) and he left the place with his car saying that he is going to the Police Station. After about 10 minutes or so, said Sunny Pandey returned to the Nakabandi Point with his car and stopped himself and said, "Mai kal hi C.M. se meeting karke aya hu" (I have returned after attending a meeting with C.M only yesterday*). Subsequently, PI Calangute appeared at the spot when said Mr. Sunny Pandey talked to PI Calangute and left the place with his car. It is learnt that the name of Mr. Sunny Pandey is Surya S/o Krishnakant Pandey native of Faridabad, U.P. and presently staying at Candolim Goa and it is also learnt that he is having his criminal record at Calangute Police Station and criminal cases are pending against him in the Court of Law. I say that Mr. Sunny Pandey @ Surya S/o Krishnakant Pandey is a dangerous person and he has threatened me while I was discharging my lawful duties. It appears that said person is very influential and he may put his threat into reality for which I apprehend danger for my life and my service. I therefore lodge my complaint against Mr. Sunny Pandey @ Surya S/o Krishnakant Pandey is a dangerous person and he has threatened me while I was discharging my lawful duties. It appears that said person is very influential and he may put his threat into reality for which I apprehend danger for my life and my service. I therefore lodge my complaint against Mr. Sunny Pandey @ Surya S/o Krishnakant Pandey native of Faridabad, U.P. and presently staying at Candolim-Goa and request for legal action as per law. Yours faithfully, sd/- (Vishal J. Mandrekar) Police Sub Inspector, Calangute Police Station." (* translated from the original Hindi version into English to facilitate understanding) 4. Mr Vibhav Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid allegations in the complaint against the petitioner herein, when read in their entirety and accepted as true, do not make out any case against the petitioner under Ss. 353 and 506 of the IPC. 5. Mr Amonkar invited our attention to Ss. 353 and 506 of the IPC and submitted that there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioner herein either assaulted the respondent No.3 or used criminal force to prevent the respondent No.3 from discharging his official duties. Similarly, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner that he had threatened the complainant with injury to his person, reputation or property. 6. It has been submitted that threat to life, as alleged, was nothing but the complainant's figment of imagination. 7. In his view, the High Court under Sec. 482 CrPC can exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR, if the allegations made in the same, do not constitute any offence against the accused. 8. The learned Counsel urged that the FIR in question is liable to be quashed on the basis of the law laid down in the cases of:- i) Manik Taneja and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr, (2015) 7 SCC 423 . ; and ii) Rohan Ashok Khaunte Vs. State of Goa through Police Inspector and Ors., 2021 SCC Online Bom 6047. 9. According to Mr Amonkar, petitioner is a Doctor (MBBS) by qualification. However, he is running a hospitality business in Calangute-Bardez. The petitioner is actively involved in social service and contributes to various social causes. ; and ii) Rohan Ashok Khaunte Vs. State of Goa through Police Inspector and Ors., 2021 SCC Online Bom 6047. 9. According to Mr Amonkar, petitioner is a Doctor (MBBS) by qualification. However, he is running a hospitality business in Calangute-Bardez. The petitioner is actively involved in social service and contributes to various social causes. In March, 2020, when a nationwide lock-down was imposed in the country, the petitioner, as a social responsibility offered to provide healthy and nutritious meals to the police personnel deployed on duty. Accordingly, the petitioner was allotted a travel permit also which he pasted on his vehicle. In order to understand the requirements of the police personnel deployed in Calangute area, the petitioner wanted to meet the then P.I. of Calangute Police Station. On his way to the said police station, however, the police team headed by the third respondent stopped him. He tried to convey his intention but the respondent No.3 was in no mood to listen to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, proceeded further. According to the petitioner, no such incident as alleged against him by the respondent No.3 ever occurred. The respondent No.3 is alleged to have made a false complaint against the petitioner. 10. In the above premise, learned Counsel for the petitioner, prayed for quashing the impugned FIR No.51/2020 dtd. 27/3/2020 registered against the petitioner. 11. Mr Amonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that the petitioner tenders his sincere apologies, if he was misunderstood and that he never had any intention to disparage the police force. To show his bonafides, he offered to give 50, 000/-, 25 ? raincoats and 25 umbrellas of good quality to the Goa Police Welfare Society, New Administrative Building Block, Altinho, Panaji. 12. Mr Nikhil Vaze, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, conceded that there was nothing on record to make out the case under Sec. 353 of the IPC against the petitioner. He fairly admitted that ingredients of Sec. 353 of IPC are absent in this case. He, however, submitted that the allegations do make out a prima facie case against the petitioner under Sec. 506 of the IPC. He submitted that inherent powers of this Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. He fairly admitted that ingredients of Sec. 353 of IPC are absent in this case. He, however, submitted that the allegations do make out a prima facie case against the petitioner under Sec. 506 of the IPC. He submitted that inherent powers of this Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. According to him, even though, the inherent powers of the High Court under Sec. 482 of the CrPC, to interfere with criminal proceedings are wide, such powers have to be exercised with circumspection and only in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the CrPC is not to be exercised for the asking. In his view, the offence committed by the petitioner is a crime against the society and not against the complainant alone. 13. Mr Vaze further submitted that the petitioner cannot insist that this Court ought minutely to examine the allegations made in the complaint to ascertain as to whether all the ingredients of the offence are present therein or not. 14. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 15. The law on the exercise of powers under Sec. 482, CrPC to quash the FIR is well settled. In State of Orissa vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540 . it is laid down that when a report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the report has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 16. Similarly, in Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1988) 5 SCC 749. it has been held that summoning an accused, in a criminal case, is a serious matter and criminal law cannot set in motion as a matter of course. The accused can approach the Court, under Sec. 482, CrPC to have the proceedings quashed when the complaint does not make out any case against him and he is still required to undergo the agony of a criminal trial, as the provisions of Sec. 482, CrPC are devised to advance justice and not to frustrate it. 17. Again, in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 17. Again, in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. it is clearly held that where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the Complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, then it is permissible for the High Court to exercise its inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the CrPC. 18. We need not further multiply the authorities. Suffice it to say that the High Court can very well exercise its inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the CrPC, if the allegations made in the First Information Report or Complaint do not make out any case against the accused. 19. The essential ingredients of the offence under Sec. 353 IPC, are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. On perusal of the FIR/Complaint, it is seen that there is absolutely nothing to show that the petitioner either assaulted the respondent No.3 or used criminal force to prevent the respondent No.3 from discharging his official duty. Hence, the ingredients of the offence under Sec. 353 are not made out in this case. Moreover, as stated above, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also conceded this position. 20. In Manik Taneja (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a reading of the provisions in Sec. 353 IPC shows that the essential ingredients of the offence are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. In the present case, there are no allegations of either assault or use of criminal force to prevent the Respondent No.3 from discharging his official duties. Therefore, even after accepting all the allegations in the complaint as true, the ingredients of the offence under Sec. 353 IPC are not made out. 21. The offence of criminal intimidation is defined by Sec. 503 IPC and Sec. 506 thereof provides punishment for the same. Therefore, even after accepting all the allegations in the complaint as true, the ingredients of the offence under Sec. 353 IPC are not made out. 21. The offence of criminal intimidation is defined by Sec. 503 IPC and Sec. 506 thereof provides punishment for the same. A bare perusal of the impugned FIR/Complaint, clearly shows that there are no allegations against the petitioner that he had threatened the complainant with injury to his person, reputation or property. Moreover, a threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this sec. . Therefore, prima facie, no offence is made out against the petitioner herein under Sec. 506 of the IPC also. 22. In Rohan Khaunte (supra), the complainant had alleged that as a spokesperson of the BJP, he took part in a press briefing and raised certain issues pertaining to the assets and business of the MLA and Ex-Minister Revenue & IT, Mr. Rohan Khaunte. After the press briefing, as the complainant was in the Assembly Complex at Porvorim, Mr. Rohan Khaunte got angry and furious, gripped his hand tightly and in furious tone asked the complainant why he was so concerned about Mr. Khaunte's property. Mr. Rohan Khaunte also said "I will show you your father and mother's properties too". 23. Based on the above complaint, an FIR was registered against Mr. Rohan Khaunte under Sec. 339, 341, 503 and 506 of IPC. However, the Division Bench of this Court held that the complainant did not even prima facie disclose the existence of the ingredients of the offences alleged. 24. In the context of the provisions of Sec. 503 of IPC which defines criminal intimidation, the Division Bench has observed as follows in paragraph 26 : "26. Sec. 503 of IPC defines criminal intimidation. The offence of criminal intimidation requires either a person or another in whom he is specially interested to be threatened. There must be an intention to cause alarm to the former by a threat to him of injury to himself or latter. This sec. has the following essentials: 1. Threatening a person with any injury. The offence of criminal intimidation requires either a person or another in whom he is specially interested to be threatened. There must be an intention to cause alarm to the former by a threat to him of injury to himself or latter. This sec. has the following essentials: 1. Threatening a person with any injury. (i) to his person, reputation or property; or (ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested. 2. The threat must be with Intent. (i) to cause alarm to that person, or (ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or (iii) to 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." 25. The Division Bench further held that Sec. 506 of IPC provides punishment for criminal intimidation. For an offence under Sec. 506, the threat should be a real one and not just utter of some words. The Division Bench concluded that the words uttered by Mr. Rohan Khaunte did not constitute any threat to life or property of the complainant. At the most, it could be inferred that the threat was of exposure of the extent of the complainant's parents' property. The Court also noted that there was no specific allegation about the threats of injury to the complainant's person, reputation or property with the intention to cause alarm. Mere threats, without any intention to cause any alarm to the complaint, but with a view to deterring him from interfering with what the accused believed to be his personal right, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. The Court also held that holding of wrist of the complainant for few seconds without any intention of restraining the complainant from proceeding in any direction, can hardly be styled as wrongful restraint. Based on all this, the Court quashed the FIR under Sec. 341 and 506 of IPC. 26. It is settled law that if allegations made in the FIR do not constitute any offence, the continuance of investigation/prosecution in such matters amounts to abuse of process of law. Thus, this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Sec. 482 CrPC to quash the impugned FIR. 27. 26. It is settled law that if allegations made in the FIR do not constitute any offence, the continuance of investigation/prosecution in such matters amounts to abuse of process of law. Thus, this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Sec. 482 CrPC to quash the impugned FIR. 27. In the present case, the Petitioner has offered a written apology for the events that transpired on 27/3/2020. Mr. Amonkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner never had any intention to disrespect or disobey the police machinery and its personnel in any manner whatsoever. However, if any Police personnel felt offended, the Petitioner apologizes for the same. He handed in the Petitioner's written apology, which is incorrectly styled as an undertaking. The same reads as follows : "I, Surya Prakash Pandey, the Petitioner in the above Criminal Writ Petition hereby apologize for the events which transpired on 27/3/2020 unconditionally. I further state that I have immense respect for the Police machinery and personnel. I undertake to never disrespect or disobey the Police machinery and its personnel in any manner, whatsoever. I however, dispute and deny the contents of the Complaint dtd. 27/3/2020 filed by Respondent No.3 herein." 28. In addition, the Petitioner to show his bonafides, offered to donate to the Goa Police Welfare Society an amount of 50, 000/-, ? 25 raincoats and 25 umbrellas of good quality for the use by the Police personnel and their family members. 29. As noted earlier, the ingredients of the offences for which the Petitioner was charged, have not been made out. Besides, the Petitioner has also tendered his apology for the misunderstanding and offered some donations to the Goa Police Welfare Society by making financial deposits in Account No.918010063860868 with Axis Bank, Calangute Branch. Mr. Amonkar stated that the Petitioner will transfer the funds within one week. He stated that the Petitioner will provide the raincoats and umbrellas also within one week. 30. Though the Petitioner's apology or the donations have no nexus with the quashing of the FIR, we accept the Petitioner's statements. For all the above reasons, we allow this Petition and quash and set aside the impugned FIR No.51/2020 dtd. 27/3/3020 registered at the Calangute Police Station. 31. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms, without any order for costs.