JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the records. 2. The revisionist has moved application under Section 156(3) CrPC for investigation and prosecution of opposite parties for offences under Section 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(vi) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes or Schedule Tribes (Prevention and Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act). This application was accepted as complaint case. 3. After accepting evidences under Section 200 and 202 CrPC, trial Court had dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC. In this order, trial Court had taken several grounds for disbelieving the complaint case, including the fact that offences under Section 420, 406, 504 IPC are not made out and the averment for Section 506 and 3(1)(vi) and 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act are doubtful and there is no ground for summoning the proposed accused persons. Aggrieved by this order dated 5.7.2016 of trial Court, present revision has been preferred. 4. In complaint, it is mentioned that for the work performed by revisionist, opposite parties had made part payment, but had not paid full amount; and when complainant requested the opposite parties for making full payment then they had misappropriated his remaining dues, beaten him and used foul words. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that there is specific averment that revisionist was beaten and threatened by opposite parties, but this fact was not considered by lower Courts. This contention is found incorrect in view of contents of complaint case as well as statements of witnesses under Chapter XV CrPC. No averment is made incomplaint orin statements that any injury was caused to revisionist. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist also contended that revisionist belongs to scheduled caste community and foul words relating to his caste were uttered by opposite parties, therefore, they should be prosecuted under the provisions of SC/ST Act. 7. From perusal of the record, especially, complaint and statements of witnesses, it is found that alleged altercation between the parties arose not because of complainant being member of scheduled caste community but because of the alleged dispute on the point of non-payment of remaining labour charges and other dues. 7. From perusal of the record, especially, complaint and statements of witnesses, it is found that alleged altercation between the parties arose not because of complainant being member of scheduled caste community but because of the alleged dispute on the point of non-payment of remaining labour charges and other dues. It is found that if prosecution case is taken to be true, even in that eventuality the cause of action for the alleged incident was non-payment of dues and not the complainant being member of scheduled caste community. The mere fact that the victim happened to be a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste does not attract the provisions of the Act. So argument regarding applicability of provisions of SC/ST Act are found unacceptable. 8. Apparently, this appears to be a dispute of civil nature where part payment has been made and revisionist’s claim is that he was not fully paid for his work done. For determining the claim of revisionist in this regard would require assesment of work done by revisionist and amount paid as well as its rationality. Such matter cannot be adjudicated by criminal Court. 9. In Jagannath Choudhary and others v. Ramayan Singh and another, AIR 2002 SC 2229 , Apex Court had held that: “Where the Court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed. If the impugned order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional jurisdiction”. “It is not an appeal wherein scruitiny of evidence is possible, neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible.” 10. in present case the trial Court had accepted the evidences under Chapter XV CrPC and after appreciating it, had given finding that no case is made out on the basis of those evidences. Such finding of fact requires re-appreciation of evidences already adduced. This Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidences and finding of fact, especially on the ground that on the basis of those evidences, there may be possibility of reaching to another conclusion which is different from that of trial Court. 11. Such finding of fact requires re-appreciation of evidences already adduced. This Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidences and finding of fact, especially on the ground that on the basis of those evidences, there may be possibility of reaching to another conclusion which is different from that of trial Court. 11. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that learned Magistrate had appreciated the facts and evidences of the case and then after being satisfied about the facts relating to allegatins, had passed the judgment. From a perusal of the records it appears that conclusions read by learned Magistrate are based on available evidences and logical conclusions. In these circumstances, it would be improper to quash the impugned order by substituting any other finding of the fact. There appears nothing on the basis of correctness, legality or propriety of impugned order which can be doubted. There appears no irregularity in procedure adopted by the trial Court. So there is no justification for interference in the impugned order. Therefore, revision fails, and is hereby dismissed. ———————