ORDER : 1. The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the Proceedings in C.C. No. 264 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District, wherein the petitioner is the sole accused. Pursuant to a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, the Police filed a Charge Sheet against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. 2. Heard Mr. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr. S. Bala Mohan Ranga, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Mr. Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. 3. The 2nd respondent herein lodged a complaint as per the contents of which he is having Savings and Current Account in State Bank of India, Dharmajigudem ADB Branch. On 25.09.2018 at about 11.30 a.m. he went to the Bank for the purpose of depositing an amount of Rs.20,000/- and while so, one person by name P. Narasimhulu, who is known to him asked him to sign as a witness in the Withdrawal Form. Since the said Narasimhulu is an illiterate, the 2nd respondent signed on the Withdrawal Form, wrote his Account Number and Mobile Number. Thereafter, the Cashier of the Bank i.e. the petitioner herein asked him to write his full address on the said Withdrawal Form, then the 2nd respondent stated that he is having Savings and Current Account in the Bank and that with the said Account Number, they can get his full details. For that, the petitioner spoke in a rude manner stating that “how can we know if you are a thief, I will put you in Jail” and insulted the 2nd respondent and that when he asked the petitioner “why would you make me put in Jail” then the petitioner shouted in the public in a loud voice stating that “I will see how will you enter the bank, till I am here and I will see your end and make you go to Jail.” The complaint was registered vide F.I.R. No. 197 of 2018 and the cognizance of the same was taken by the Learned Magistrate in C.C. No. 264 of 2019. 4. 4. The learned counsel submits that the statements/averments in the said complaint are partially correct and in fact, the petitioner herein requested the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to fill the required/mandatory details without leaving blanks, then the 2nd respondent started shouting on the petitioner and threatened him with dire consequences, created nuisance, which resulted in hampering of Customer Service for more than an hour and in those circumstances, the petitioner informed the Police, who immediately reached the Bank and after making the enquiries advised the petitioner to give complaint in writing and accordingly a complaint was lodged by the petitioner against the de facto complainant on 25.09.2018. But, surprisingly, the Police have registered the petitioner’s complaint vide F.I.R. No. 198/2018 after registering the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent herein vide F.I.R. No. 197/2018. He submits that in so far as the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein, the Police have filed a separate Charge Sheet against the 2nd respondent herein for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of IPC and the matter is pending consideration before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. In so far as the Charge Sheet filed against the petitioner is concerned, which was taken on file vide C.C. No. 264/2019, he submits that no ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC are present and that even if the allegations made against the petitioner are taken to be true, they will not attract the offence alleged against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the Learned Counsel submits that the continuation of Proceedings which are sought to be quashed is a futile exercise and amounts to abuse of process of Law. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manik Taneja and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) 7 SCC 423 and Parminder Kaur alias P.P. Kaur alias Soni vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 8 SCC 811 the learned counsel urges for quashing of the Proceedings in question. 5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the other hand, submits that it is a Case and Counter Case wherein the Police have registered the Crime against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint which was lodged by the 2nd respondent and in view of the interim orders, trial could not take place. 5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the other hand, submits that it is a Case and Counter Case wherein the Police have registered the Crime against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint which was lodged by the 2nd respondent and in view of the interim orders, trial could not take place. He submits that as the petitioner threatened the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant with dire consequences, Section 506 of IPC is attracted and there are no merits in the contentions contra. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent supported the arguments advanced by the counsel for the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant and urges for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. As is evident from the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant, the alleged incident occurred on 25.09.2018. Both the complaints were made by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent against each other in the context of submitting the Withdrawal Form by one Mr. P. Narasimhulu, without filling the relevant details of the person/the 2nd respondent herein, who signed on the Withdrawal Form as a witness. It is also not in dispute that the 2nd respondent is the customer of the Bank in which the petitioner is working as a Cashier and there are no allegations in the complaints made by both of them, that there is any prior animosity between them. From a close reading of the complaints, it can be culled out that in the heat of moment, the petitioner appears to have uttered some words, which according to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant with dire consequences. To attract Criminal Intimidation under Section 503 of IPC, there should be a threat to a person 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. 8. To attract Criminal Intimidation under Section 503 of IPC, there should be a threat to a person 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. 8. In the present case as observed earlier, in the heat of moment the petitioner appears to have uttered certain words, therefore no intention can be gathered to the effect that to cause alarm to the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant, the petitioner/accused threatened the 2nd respondent, in the absence of which, no offence of Criminal Intimidation would arise. 9. In Manik Teja’s case referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with an order of the High Court of Madras and while quashing the F.I.R. registered against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of IPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held that “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.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that “in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court should be extremely cautious to interfere with the investigation or trial of a criminal case and should not stall the investigation, save and except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of offence and that continuance of the criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of process of the court.” 10. In Parminder Kaur’s case referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal filed against the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana confirming the order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge convicting the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A and 506 of IPC. In Parminder Kaur’s case referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal filed against the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana confirming the order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge convicting the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A and 506 of IPC. In so far as the Charge of Criminal Intimidation is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that “Proving the intention of the appellant to cause alarm or compel doing/abstaining from some act, and not mere utterances of words, is a pre-requisite of successful conviction under Section 506 IPC.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below. 11. In the light of the expressions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above and in the context of which the case was registered against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations on their face value would not attract offence under Section 506 IPC, no case can be made out against the petitioner and the chances of his conviction are bleak. No useful purpose would be served, by allowing the Proceedings to continue in such circumstances, which otherwise, tantamount to abuse of process of Law. 12. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is inclined to invoke its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C. No. 264 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District are quashed. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. 14. As a sequel, pending applications if any shall stand closed.