JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Special Judge , SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) , Cases, Sriganganagar dated 10.04.08 by which he has partly allowed the revision petition and quashed the order of cognizance to the extent of offence under section 3 (1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and maintained the order with regard to other offences under section 454, 427, 382 and 323 IPC . 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 21.10.06 some incident took place and during that incident it is alleged that the accused Devendra Kumar gave threatening to vacate the rented shops and he started throwing goods lying in the shop, took away Rs.800/- lying in the safe and hurled caste based abuses. A report of the incident was lodged vide FIR No.195/06 and a case was registered under sections 454, 427, 382 and 323 IPC and section 3 (1)(10) of the Act. It is further revealed that police gave negative F.R. after investigation. Against that, the complainant Sukh Dev Singh made a protest petition before the trial Magistrate. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of complainant as well as the witnesses, Jogender Singh and Lakhvir Singh and thereafter took cognizance under the aforesaid sections. Against that, a revision petition was filed before the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 10.04.08, partly allowed the revision and quashed the order of cognizance, to the extent of section 3(1)(10) of the Act as stated above. Against that the present revision has been filed by the complainant-petitioner. 3. It was urged during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused hurled caste based abusive words, therefore, the trial court had rightly taken cognizance against the accused under section 3 (1)(10) of the Act. He also drew my attention towards the statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge should have maintained that order but the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly quashed the same. A prayer was made to allow the revision petition and restore the order of learned Magistrate. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the statement of the complainant himself, recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. by the trial Magistrate. A prayer was made to allow the revision petition and restore the order of learned Magistrate. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the statement of the complainant himself, recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. by the trial Magistrate. But in that statement, he has no where stated that accused hurled him any caste based abuses, though other witnesses have stated contrary to their previous statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. 6. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, the learned Sessions Judge did not find the commission of offence under section 3(1)(10) of the Act and has rightly quashed the order to that extent. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******