The main legal point established is that criminal intimidation under Sections 506(i) and 506(ii) I.P.C. can be proved based on real threats and actions that cause alarm or harm to the victims.

1. The learned Judicial Magistrate in C.C.No.146/2005, dated 25.10.2005, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 506(i) I.P.C. (3 counts) and 506(ii) I.P.C. (5 counts) and sentenced him to undergo two years' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(i) I.P.C. (3 counts) and sentenced him to undergo three years' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. (5 counts) and to run the sentence consecutively. But, he was acquitted for the offence under Sections 193 I.P.C. (7 counts) and 420 I.P.C. (7 counts). The aforesaid judgment was confirmed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Namakkal. But, since the accused was in prison for 743 days, his sentence alone has modified concurrently instead of consecutively, against which, the present revision has been preferred by the accused/revision petitioner.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows:

On 27.05.2000, P.W.1 Advocate Mr.Palaniappan received notice from the Special Court, Paramathi Vellore, Namakkal District, under Ex.P1 dated 26.05.2000, in which, it was stated that P.W.1 has to pay compensation to one Varadhammal and in respect of the same, he has to send a reply within a week, if otherwise, he will be set ex-parte. So P.W.1 has preferred a private complaint under Ex.P3 on 05.06.2000 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi Vellore, who has referred to the matter under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the respondent police herein. The respondent police herein registered the case and investigated the same and filed a charge sheet under Sections 193, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C.

3. The trial Court after following the procedure, framed necessary charges. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial Court, on considering the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.11 and Exs.P1 to P16, Ex.D1, acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him for the offence under Sections 193 I.P.C. (7 counts) and 420 I.P.C. (7 counts), but he was convicted for the offence under Sections 506(i) I.P.C. (3 counts) and 506(ii) I.P.C. (5 counts) and sentenced him as stated above, which was ordered to be run consecutively, against which, the accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.109/2005, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court,

Namakkal, which was confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, but ordered to run the sentence concurrently instead of consecutively, against which, the present revision has been preferred by the petitioner/accused.

4. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that P.W.1 has preferred a private complaint without approaching the concerned police. Only on the basis of the complaint sent by the learned Magistrate, Paramathi Vellore, the case has been registered in Cr.No.233 of 2000 for the offence under Sections 193, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C. As per the decision reported in 2003 (2) CTC 270 (M/S.Pasumai Irrigation Limited v. M/S.Mansi Finance (Chennai) Limited), a private complaint can be entertained only when complaint to police is either refused to be registered or after entertaining complaint, police has referred the case as mistake of law or fact, or undetectable case or case of civil nature. The Magistrate cannot usurp the jurisdiction of police by entertaining private complaint at the first instance without prior complaint to police.

5. The second limb of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint itself is not made out on the ingredients of Section 506 I.P.C. The threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the person uttering it does exactly mean what he says and also when the person at whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. Empty threats does not prima facie mean that the case under Section 506 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. To substantiate the same, he