JUDGMENT : CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J. 1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service. Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondent No. 2. Earlier also, when the second respondent did not turn up for hearing, this Court on 12.07.2023 observed that, the matter will be proceeded on the adjourned day irrespective of absence of respondent No. 2. Thus, considering the controversy involved in the matter, the same is taken up for final hearing today. 2. This criminal misc. application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is filed by the petitioners seeking quash of FIR in Crime No. II-3003 of 2019, registered with Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Section 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 3. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent. 4. Facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell may be stated as follow: 4.1 The de facto complainant is the husband of the accused No. 1 and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of the accused No. 1. As dispute arose between the spouses i.e. the de facto complainant and the accused No. 1, earlier a case was registered against the de facto complainant on the report lodged by the accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The said FIR was quashed as there was settlement between the parties and it was quashed on the consent of both the parties. 4.2 Subsequently, they lived together for sometime. Again, their relationship was not cordial and they were at loggerheads. They started living separately. While so, on 04.01.2019, the de facto complainant and the petitioners, who are his wife and the in-laws, met at Novatel Hotel, Ahmedabad to square up their disputes. They were discussing about the alimony to be paid to the accused No. 1 by the de facto complainant. 4.3 It is stated that, at that time, all the three accused have, in unison, threatened the de facto complainant to kill him if he does not give divorce to the accused No. 1. 4.4 On the next day i.e. on 05.01.2019, the de facto complainant lodged the report with the police regarding the said threat given by the accused. The present FIR was registered on the basis of the said report. 5. 4.4 On the next day i.e. on 05.01.2019, the de facto complainant lodged the report with the police regarding the said threat given by the accused. The present FIR was registered on the basis of the said report. 5. The petitioners sought quash of the said FIR on the ground that no such threat, as alleged, was given by them to the de facto complainant and would contend that even if any such a threat is given, that by itself would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 506(2) of the IPC for which the FIR was registered. Therefore, they sought quash of the FIR on the said ground. 5.1 To shore up the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on an unreported judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ronak Ashokbhai Kedia vs. State of Gujarat and Others in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4145 of 2012 dated 19.11.2014, wherein, while considering the definition of Criminal Intimidation as defined in Section 503 of the IPC, it is held as follows: “12. A bare perusal of Section 506 IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that an accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant, but with a view to deterring him from interfering with the work of construction of the wall, which was undertaken by the accused-applicant, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. In the entire FIR, there is no whisper of any allegation that the threats which were administered actually caused any alarm to the first informant and he felt actually threatened.” 5.2 The learned counsel for the petitioners next relied on another unreported judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Nalinbhai Amirali Bhanvadia and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Others in Criminal Misc. Application No. 21631 of 2014 on 18.07.2019, wherein also, it is held that, mere threat given, by itself, would not constitute an offence under Section 503 of the IPC unless it is shown that the threat is given with intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Application No. 21631 of 2014 on 18.07.2019, wherein also, it is held that, mere threat given, by itself, would not constitute an offence under Section 503 of the IPC unless it is shown that the threat is given with intention to cause alarm to the complainant. 5.3 In the instant case, the only allegation that was made is that the accused threatened the de facto complainant that if he does not give divorce to the accused No. 1, that they would kill him. Except stating the said fact, it is not made clear that the said threat was given to him with an intention to cause alarm to him. This Court clearly in both the judgments cited supra held that in view of definition of Criminal Intimidation under Section 503 of the IPC, in order to make out an offence of Criminal Intimidation, punishable under Section 506(2) of the IPC, that it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant and that, mere threats given by the accused, without any intention to cause alarm to the complainant, would not constitute the offence of Criminal Intimidation. 5.4 Therefore, the said basic ingredient and predominant requirement to establish or to constitute an offence of Criminal Intimidation punishable under Section 506(2) of the IPC regarding intention to cause alarm to the complainant by such threat, is conspicuously absent in the present case. Therefore, the FIR that was registered against the petitioners is legally unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Resultantly, the application is allowed. The FIR in Crime No. II-3003 of 2019, registered with Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Section 506(2) and 114 of the IPC against the petitioners, is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.