ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J. This revision petition is directed u/s 397 read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') against the Order dated 18-10-2004 passed by Special Judge, (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) in Sessions Trial No. 569/04 whereby directions for framing charges u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') have been given and in pursuance of this order the said charges are framed against applicant, According to prosecution case complainant Radhelal Pawle who is 'Gond' by caste, as scheduled under the Tribal community, was working as a watchman along with his wife Smt. Krashna Bai as agricultural labourer at the field of accused Smt. Sushila Bai Sharma situated at 'Katiya Ghat' Jabalpur. On 3-4-2004 applicant came to field and asked complainant to hand over all goods and implements, in pursuance of it same were counted. Thereafter complainant was asked to leave that field ingrowth his family. But for leaving that place, he demanded Rs. 2080/- as arrears of wages for himself and his wife which was denied by applicant by saying that you run away 'Gudwa' there is no money for him and if he speaks more then she will lodge a report against him for theft in which he would be arrested. On which complainant gave a report in writing to Station House Officer of Tribal Welfare Police Station, Jabalpur, with a copy to P. S. Barela (Gwarighat Chauraha) where the offence was registered as Crime No. 120/04 u/s 294 of Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of S. C. and S.T. Act on 4-4-2004. On investigation a charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Court by which abovesaid charge was framed. Having, heard the learned counsel for the applicant who demonstrated the case for discharge while other hand counsel of the State supported and justified the charge. In view of their arguments I have perused the entire charge-sheet placed by the applicant on record. Before considering all other circumstances of the case at hand, I would like to refer the section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and ST. Act, which reads as under: Punishments for offences of atrocities. In view of their arguments I have perused the entire charge-sheet placed by the applicant on record. Before considering all other circumstances of the case at hand, I would like to refer the section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and ST. Act, which reads as under: Punishments for offences of atrocities. - (1) whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.- (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; The abovesaid section was enacted by the legislature to protect the member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from the exploitation and atrocities by the person of other community. The other community person may be from forward caste or any other caste except Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. But, at the same time one should not forget that the abovesaid provision has not been enacted for the purpose of exploitation or to create an atrocities to said other community person in the garb of a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. As such, such provisions are not enacted to create undue influence or coercion and pressure to fulfil unnecessary or ulterior demand made by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes person to the person of other community. It is an undisputed fact that charge of section 294 of Indian Penal Code has not been framed against applicant. Although in police report the offence of section 294, Indian Penal Code was also mentioned but as per charge-sheet the ingredients of section 294 of Indian Penal Code are also not made out in the case at hand. The said section 294, Indian Penal Code reads as under: Section 294: Whoever, to the annoyance of others.- (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) signs, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both. According to this definition, the annoyance should be made on 'public place' or near the public place. According to this definition, the annoyance should be made on 'public place' or near the public place. Admittedly, the incident as alleged by the complainant had not taken place on public place as it was agricultural field of the accused and also there is no evidence about the annoyance and even otherwise at the initial stage any obscene words are not spoken as appeared from First Information Report, though it was given in writing. Therefore, in the lack of ingredients charge of section 294, Indian Penal Code was not framed by the trial Court. Although this discussion and consideration was not necessary but to explain entire circumstances of the case the abovesaid aspect was considered. The counsel of the applicant submitted that in F.I.R., obscene words are not mentioned and only word 'Gondwa', which is a caste of the complainant was told during conversation about removal of services of the complainant and his wife. It is normal tradition of the Indian Society whenever a person is called he is always called by his first name or someshow in the name of his caste or surname and in case at hand as alleged only the name of caste was spoken by applicant but not a single circumstance appears in F.I.R. on which the inference could be drawn that the said word was used with intention to cause insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate the complainant in public view. And in the lack of these ingredients the charge of section 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T. Act could not have been framed. Therefore, at the initial stage if the impugned charge-sheet is evaluated as it is then the applicant is not liable for any offence. He further submitted that even the statement of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 of Code in interrogation by the police, it does not reflect the ingredients regarding charged offence. Although these statements were recorded at very belated stage from the date of registration of the offence. He further submitted that even the statement of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 of Code in interrogation by the police, it does not reflect the ingredients regarding charged offence. Although these statements were recorded at very belated stage from the date of registration of the offence. He also submitted that according to case diary statements of Krashna Bai, Radhelal, Murarilal, Gaurelal, Gulab Bai and Guddi Bai some exaggerated version have been recorded and a thing which was not mentioned in the F.I.R. were given placed in the statements and only words abuses are mentioned, but, admittedly, it was not spoken at a public place or with intention to humiliate the complainant because he is belonging the tribal caste or community. In view of aforesaid submission, I have gone through the entire papers of the charge-sheet including case-diary statements of witnesses and F.I.R. but I have not found any circumstance which speaks that there was any intention or intimidation to cause any harm to the complainant being a member of tribal community. Where there is an intention or intimidation is absent in aforesaid manner therefore mere on the basis of conversation or altercation in between complainant and applicant does not warrant to frame the charge against applicant. If there was any dispute regarding arrears of money and the same was not paid or given to the complainant then the appropriate proceedings could have been submitted before the competent Court or authority for realizing the same as per prescribed procedure of law. But, it does not mean that a Tribal person has a right to initiate the criminal proceeding against the applicant for realizing of his amount. This Court has also considered the abovesaid aspect at one occasion in the case reported in 1994 1 M.P.W.N 154 Raton Lal vs. State of M.P. which said as under : In the present case the only fact displayed in the F.I.R. is that the complainant was called 'Khatik'. It is undisputed that he is a Khatik. The threats contained in the complaint which follow have nothing to do with the complainant belonging to the scheduled caste. Those threats eminate out of the past relations between the complainant and the accused as a villager and sarpanch of the village. It is undisputed that he is a Khatik. The threats contained in the complaint which follow have nothing to do with the complainant belonging to the scheduled caste. Those threats eminate out of the past relations between the complainant and the accused as a villager and sarpanch of the village. None of the allegations show that they were made with the intent to insult or humiliate the complainant on account of his belonging to a scheduled caste. Consequently there is no nexus between the utterance of the word 'Khatik' and the intention to insult or annoy the complainant. In the absence of such nexus, he has used the word of the caste to which the complainant belong by itself would not be sufficient in the absence of any other material to base factual foundation for a charge u/s 3(1)(x) ibid. Although, the facts of abovesaid case are slightly different from the case at hand but the said principle is directly applicable to it. I am aware that at the stage of framing charge if prima facie ingredients are available in charge sheet then revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked for discharging the accused but when ingredients of the alleged offence are absent then such charges cannot be sustained and therefore by invoking the revisional power of this Court I hold that no ingredients of alleged offence of S.C. and S.T. Act are made out against applicant for framing the charge and trial Court committed a grave error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. In the aforesaid premises, I find apparent perversity, illegality and impropriety in the impugned order. Therefore, the same is hereby set aside and the applicant is discharged from the aforesaid offences. Revision petition is allowed.