JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Lolem, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. I have also heard Ms. L. Hage, the Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. S. Tapin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2. 2. The instant application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) is filed for setting aside and quashing the order dated 07.02.2020 whereby charge was framed under Section 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) against the Petitioner herein in connection with Aalo P.S. Case No. 79/2016 registered under Sections 447/448/506 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 49/2017. The Petitioner has also challenged the charge sheet dated 07.01.2017 filed in connection with Aalo P.S. Case No. 79/2016 registered under Sections 447/448/506 of the Indian Penal Code by which charge under Section 506 (Part- II) of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the Petitioner as well as the connected criminal proceedings i.e. G.R. Case No. 49/2017 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo West Siang, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. Before taking into consideration the contentions made by the parties, it would be relevant to take note of the brief facts of the case. On 21.11.2016, an F.I.R. was filed by the Respondent No. 2 alleging inter-alia that on 18.11.2016, the brother-in-law of the Respondent No. 2 hosted a dinner party on the occasion of a marriage ceremony of his eldest son at his private residence located at Gour Hill Aalo where various persons, friends and relatives, well wishers alongwith the M.L.A of 31st Aalo East Constituency were invited. The Respondent No. 2 being the eldest son-in-law of the Lona family was entrusted to anchor the party. It was alleged that the said Respondent No. 2 noticed that the Petitioner was moving all around the party hall and causing annoyance to the guests and making them uncomfortable with his unnecessary arguments and in doing so also threatened the Executive Engineer, WRD, Aalo without any reason. The Respondent No. 2 further alleged in his F.I.R. that he requested the Petitioner to maintain etiquette and give proper respect to the invitees. But the Petitioner refused to do so and countered the Respondent No. 2 with abusive words. The Respondent No. 2 further alleged in his F.I.R. that he requested the Petitioner to maintain etiquette and give proper respect to the invitees. But the Petitioner refused to do so and countered the Respondent No. 2 with abusive words. It was further alleged in the said F.I.R. that various guests left the party in view of the behavior of the Petitioner and as such the Respondent No. 2 on asking the Petitioner to behave properly, the Petitioner got furious and took out the revolver from his waist and pointed towards the Respondent No. 2 but nothing happened as in the meantime the Petitioner was intervened by other persons. It was further alleged that the Petitioner had stated that he would not do anything in the Lona house but would kill the Respondent No. 2 outside somewhere, sometime when he gets an opportunity. 4. A further perusal of the said F.I.R. would also show that it was alleged that after getting such threat from the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 had a reasonable apprehension that he may cause injury or harm to him in the days to come. It is on the basis of such allegations that the said FIR was lodged and registered and numbered as Aalo P.S. Case No. 79/2016 under Sections 447/448/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1)(B)/27 of the Arms Act. 5. Pursuant thereto, the investigation was carried out. During the investigation statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. It may be pertinent herein to mention that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded of the Respondent No. 2, he, inter-alia, stated that the Petitioner was disturbing some of the high profile guests and annoying them with his vulgar words and noticing the same, the Respondent No. 2 went straightly towards the Petitioner and held his hand and asked the Petitioner to leave the party. It was further stated that instantly the Petitioner became furious and moved his hand towards his waist to pull out his revolver and in the meantime, some of the guests and members of the house intervened him and, thereafter, the Petitioner left the house but threatened to kill the Respondent No. 2 some day and used all vulgar words. 6. Subsequent thereto, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet on 07.01.2017. 6. Subsequent thereto, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet on 07.01.2017. In the said charge sheet, it was opined by the Investigating Officer that prima-facie case under Sections 447/448/506 of the IPC was found well established against the Petitioner and the Court was informed that 0.32 revolver B/No. M6383 with 9(nine) live cartridges and one armed license was seized in connection with the case and kept at P.S. Malkhana vide Aalo P.S. M.R. No. 67/16 dated 25.11.2016 and if proved of violating the Arms Act, the prosecution sanction shall be obtained from the concerned authority and submitted in the supplementary charge-sheet. 7. It further appears from the records that the Petitioner sought for his discharge on the ground that no case has been made out against the Petitioner under Sections 447/448/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang, District Aalo after hearing the parties vide an order dated 07.02.2020 held that no case was made out against the Petitioner under Section 447/448 of the Indian Penal Code but found prima facie ingredients against the Petitioner under Section 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly charged the Petitioner under Section 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code. It is under such circumstances that the instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) for setting aside the order dated 07.02.2020, the charge-sheet dated 07.01.2017 as well as also for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated thereupon. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and given my anxious consideration to the matter. The point which arises for consideration is as to whether on the facts of the instant case as stated hereinabove, a case under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. For the purpose of the same, this Court finds it apt to look into the provisions of Section 503 and 506 of the IPC. The said Sections are quoted herein-below: “503. For the purpose of the same, this Court finds it apt to look into the provisions of Section 503 and 506 of the IPC. The said Sections are quoted herein-below: “503. Criminal intimidation - 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. 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation - Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. - And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, un-chastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” 9. A reading of Section 503 of the IPC which stipulates when an offence of criminal intimidation is committed would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to that person of his reputation or his property or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to that person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which he is legally entitled to do. The Supreme Court in the case of Manik Tatia and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) 7 SCC 423 observed at Paragraph No. 12 that the threat must be with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. The Supreme Court in the case of Manik Tatia and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) 7 SCC 423 observed at Paragraph No. 12 that the threat must be with an 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 sufficient to bring in the application of Section 503 of the IPC. It was further observed that materials has been placed to record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. 10. Now, coming to the Section 506 of the IPC, it is relevant to note that to apply the said Section, it has to be seen as to whether the ingredients of the offence as defined in Section 503 is made out or not. For proving an offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened the complainant. (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to the complainant, his reputation or to his property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom the complainant was interested. (iii) That the threat must be with the intent to cause an alarm to the complainant; or to cause the complainant to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat. 11. The Supreme Court in Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2019) 14 SCC 207 also dealt with the scope and ambit of Sections 503, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The relevant paragraphs for the sake of convenience is quoted herein-below: “23. In another judgment i.e. Manik Taneja vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 132, this Court has again occasion to examine the ingredients of Sections 503 and 506. In the above case also, case was registered for the offence under Sections 353 and 506 IPC. After noticing Section 503, which defines criminal intimidation, this Court laid down the following in Paras 11 and 12: (SCC pp. 427-28) “11................ In the above case also, case was registered for the offence under Sections 353 and 506 IPC. After noticing Section 503, which defines criminal intimidation, this Court laid down the following in Paras 11 and 12: (SCC pp. 427-28) “11................ A reading of the definition of “criminal intimidation” would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. 12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of “criminal intimidation.” The 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 section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the mind of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of the appellants posting a comment on Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC.” In the above case, allegation was that the appellant had abused the complainant. The Court held that the mere fact that the allegation that accused had abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 506 IPC. 24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The Court held that the mere fact that the allegation that accused had abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 506 IPC. 24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in Para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715. 25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715 has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal and Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following: “.......The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some person. (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following: “.......The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some person. (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested. (iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.” (Emphasis supplied) A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.” 12. In the backdrop of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, it would be relevant to take into consideration as to whether a case under Section 503 and 506 of the IPC is made out from a perusal of the charge sheet dated 07.01.2017 as well as the accompanying materials on the basis of which the charge sheet was filed. A perusal of the F.I.R. the details which have already been mentioned hereinabove, would show that the incident took place on 18.11.2016 and the said F.I.R. was filed on 21.11.2016. The allegations made in the F.I.R. do not show that the threat of the Petitioner that he would kill the Respondent No. 2 outside somewhere, sometime whenever he gets an opportunity has caused an alarm to the Respondent No. 2 to do any act which he was not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which he is legally entitled to do. To attract the offence of Section 503 and 506 of the IPC, merely causing alarm is not sufficient. The alarm which is caused on account of the threat should cause the person threatened or someone whom he is interested to do any act which he was not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do. A perusal of the FIR only shows that the Respondent No. 2 had only stated that the threat had caused an apprehension or alarm that the Petitioner may cause injury or harm to him in the days to come. A perusal of the FIR only shows that the Respondent No. 2 had only stated that the threat had caused an apprehension or alarm that the Petitioner may cause injury or harm to him in the days to come. The said allegations in the opinion of this Court is not sufficient to attract Sections 503 and 506 of the IPC. The other aspect of the matter which also is apparent is that if the Respondent No. 2 was so alarmed by such criminal intimidation, there is no explanation in the F.I.R. as to why he lodged the FIR after 3 (three) days. 13. Now, coming to the statement of the Respondent No. 2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the details of which have already mentioned hereinabove. The relevant portion of the said statement i.e. “And while leaving the house, he threatened to kill me some day and used all sorts of vulgar words. That’s all I can say, Sir” makes it further abundantly clear that there is no materials to substantiate that the threats so given by the Petitioner had caused alarm to the Respondent No. 2 to cause the Respondent No. 2 to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat. 14. Now, if this Court takes into consideration the charge sheet, it would be apparent that the only allegation in so far as Sections 503 and 506 of the IPC is that the Petitioner while leaving the party threatened the Respondent No. 2 with dire consequences. There is nothing mentioned in the charge sheet which would substantiate the ingredients of Sections 503 and 506 of the IPC as discussed herein above. 15. Consequently, this Court therefore is of the view that no case is made out against the Petitioner under Sections 503 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 49/2017 arising out of Aalo P.S. Case No. 79/2016, the F.I.R. dated 21.11.2016 and all proceedings in connection therewith stands set aside and quashed thereby allowing the instant application.