ORDER 1. This petition is for setting aside the order dated 6.10.2007 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision No. 118/07, whereby the learned Judge has affirmed an order dated 25.7.2007 (25.4.2007) passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind in Criminal Case No. 138/07 based on a private complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 Patiram, by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 323/34, 294, 341, 336 and 506B of IPC along with section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Although Shri Kamthan has impugned the order as a whole, yet at the very outset he has submitted that, for the present, he is assailing the part of the order by which cognizance for the offence punishable under section 3 (I) (x) of the Act has been taken. With regard to the aforementioned offence, the relevant allegations appear in para 5 of the complaint, which goes as under: ^^5-------------------------------------cksys fd lkys pejk okys Ms<+ rwus uki D;ksa fd;k vkSj mijksDr yksxksa us eq>s tehu ij iVd fn;k o twrksa o /kkiM+ksa ls esjh ekjihV dh--------------------** 3. On perusal of the statements of the witnesss under section 200 and 202 of CrPC, the aforementioned allegation in the same words does not appears respondent No.1 Patiram himself has stated-" ^^dgus yxs fd pejk okys rwus ;gka dSls fu"kku yxk,** Similar statements have been given by other witnesses Sakravati, Ramsiya and Amar Singh. Statement of Amar Singh has some difference. He has stated- ^^dg jgs Fks fd eknjpksn pejk okys uho [kksnus dSls vk;k** These are the allegations in the complaint and the statements on which the aforementioned cognizance has been taken. 4. As provided by section 3 (1) (x) of the Act -" 3 . Punishments for offences of atrocities.-- (1) whoever, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-- (i) to (ix) ................. (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;" It appears that intention of insulting or intimidating the person of such a caste to humiliate that person on the basis of the fact that he is a member of that caste is required. (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;" It appears that intention of insulting or intimidating the person of such a caste to humiliate that person on the basis of the fact that he is a member of that caste is required. In the aforementioned allegations, there is an address to a person of a Scheduled Caste by the word chamra. Calling a person by the name of his caste in such words does not come within this purview. The another abuse appears to be alleged to the person concern not to the caste. There appears no such intention in the allegation which is required as per the law. Similar view has been taken in the following two orders of this Court passed by another Bench, cited by Shri Kamthan on behalf of the petitioners: (1) Anil Kumar Pandey v. Daulat Prasad [ 2005 (II) MPWN 133 ]. (2) Surendra Kaurav and others v. State of M.P. [ 2008 (1) MPHT 317 ]. 5. In view of this, the impugned order, with regard to this offence, I appears erroneous and also an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, so far as it relates with the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act.