JUDGMENT : Rameshwar Vyas, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No. 144/2012 (8345/2014) (State of Rajasthan v. Anand Swaroop & Ors.), whereby the trial court ordered to state substance of accusation under Section 323 I.P.C. to the petitioners, in pursuance of which, the substance of accusation was stated to the accused-petitioners on 16.04.2021 & 22.07.2021. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No. 2 - Chandra Prakash Vyas lodged a report regarding an incident dated 22.03.2011 against the petitioners and one Ishwardutt at Police Station Kotwali, District Bhilwara on 23.03.2011, upon which, the F.I.R. No. 187/2011 for the offences under Sections 452, 323 & 341 I.P.C. was registered, which is placed on record as Annexure-12. After investigation, the police submitted the final report (Annexure-17) with the conclusion that case was of non-cognizable nature. On the basis of the police report, the trial court vide Order dated 30.03.2012 took cognizance of offence under Section 323 I.P.C. against the accused-petitioners and Ishwardutt and proceeded under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The above order was challenged by the complainant-respondent No. 2 by way of filing revision petition before the court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara bearing Criminal Revision Petition No. 165/2012, which was decided on 27.08.2012, whereby while allowing the revision petition, the trial court was directed to take cognizance of offence under Section 452 I.P.C. also. The said order was further challenged by the petitioners before this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 985/2013 (Anand Swaroop & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), which was allowed vide Order dated 10.09.2013 and the order passed by the revisional court dated 27.08.2012 was quashed with a direction to the revisional court to decide the revision petition afresh after providing appropriate opportunity of hearing to the parties. After that, the revisional court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara vide Order dated 29.03.2016 dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the Order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the trial court taking cognizance of offence under Section 323 I.P.C. only, against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant-respondent No. 2 preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2484/2016 (Chandra Prakash v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), which was dismissed by this Court on 24.01.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant-respondent No. 2 preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2484/2016 (Chandra Prakash v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), which was dismissed by this Court on 24.01.2017. It is relevant to mention here that against the Order dated 29.03.2016, the petitioners also preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1195/2016 (Anand Swaroop & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), which was dismissed as not pressed vide Order dated 24.01.2017 with liberty to the petitioners to raise all their defence before the trial court at the time of framing of charges. Afterwards, the trial court vide Order dated 27.02.2020 came to the conclusion that this was a case, in which the provisions of Section 251 Cr.P.C. were applicable and there was no ground to stop the proceedings against the accused under the provisions of Section 258 Cr.P.C. also. The trial court was of the opinion that offence under Section 323 I.P.C. was made out against the accused persons. The trial court, accordingly, ordered to state substance of accusation under Section 323 I.P.C. to the petitioners, in pursuance of which, the substance of accusation was stated to the accused-petitioners on 16.04.2021 & 22.07.2021. Aggrieved by same, the petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when offence under Section 452 I.P.C. was not made out then it was not proper to rely upon the statement of the complainant regarding commission of offence under Section 323 I.P.C., wherein as per the prosecution story, the incident took place in the house. He further submitted that false allegation of causing injury was levelled against the petitioners by the complainant. The criminal prosecution pending against them is abuse of the process of law. The trial court was not correct in passing impugned order dated 27.02.2020 directing to state substance of accusation under Section 323 I.P.C. to the petitioners, in pursuance of which, the substance of accusation was stated to the accused-petitioners on 16.04.2021 & 22.07.2021. He, therefore, prayed that the order impugned may be set aside. 5. The trial court was not correct in passing impugned order dated 27.02.2020 directing to state substance of accusation under Section 323 I.P.C. to the petitioners, in pursuance of which, the substance of accusation was stated to the accused-petitioners on 16.04.2021 & 22.07.2021. He, therefore, prayed that the order impugned may be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the orders impugned, submitted that the trial court after appreciating entire material as well as evidence on record, rightly passed the orders impugned, which do not warrant any interference. 6. From perusal of the record, it is revealing that for the incident of dated 22.03.2011, a report was lodged by the complainant-respondent No. 2 against the petitioners and one Ishwardutt on 23.03.2011, upon which, FIR No. 187/2011 was registered for the offences under Section 452, 323 & 341 I.P.C. It is also true that after investigation, the police submitted final report on the ground that non-cognizable offence was made out against the petitioners. On the basis of the police report, the trial court took cognizance of offence under Section 323 I.P.C. on 30.03.2012. After further litigation, the Order dated 30.03.2012 taking cognizance of offence under Section 323 I.P.C. against the petitioners was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara on 29.03.2016. The said order was challenged by the complainant-respondent No. 2 as well as present petitioners by way of filing separate misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which were dismissed. However, in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1195/2016 (Anand Swaroop & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 24.01.2017, the liberty was granted to the petitioners to raise all their defence before the trial court at the time of framing of charges. It is clear that since offence under Section 323 I.P.C. is not a warrant case, hence, there was no need to frame formal charge against the petitioners. As per provisions of Section 251 Cr.P.C., only substance of accusation is to be stated to the accused. The trial court in pursuance of the Order dated 24.01.2017 passed by this Court, considered the objections raised by the petitioners and came to the conclusion that prima facie offence under Section 323 I.P.C. was made out against the petitioners. As per provisions of Section 251 Cr.P.C., only substance of accusation is to be stated to the accused. The trial court in pursuance of the Order dated 24.01.2017 passed by this Court, considered the objections raised by the petitioners and came to the conclusion that prima facie offence under Section 323 I.P.C. was made out against the petitioners. This Court does not find any error in the order impugned passed by the trial court stating the accusation to the accused-petitioners under Section 323 I.P.C. There is concurrent finding regarding making out offence under Section 323 I.P.C. against the petitioners. There is no reason to disagree with the police report wherein also, it was found that non-cognizable offence was made out against the petitioners. Since the police had submitted final report in the F.I.R. on the ground of commission of non-cognizable offence, hence, as per provisions of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., the report filed by the police shall be deemed to be a complaint and the provisions of Section 258 Cr.P.C. shall not be applicable. The provisions of Section 258 Cr.P.C. are applicable only in summons cases instituted otherwise than on complaint. Since in the present case, the order taking cognizance under Section 323 I.P.C. is not in question, which has already been made final after dismissing the Misc. Petition No. 1195/2016 on 24.01.2017, the order impugned whereby substance of accusation under Section 323 I.P.C. was stated to the petitioners, cannot be faulted with. 7. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the order impugned. 8. The criminal misc. petition is devoid of any merit and therefore, is dismissed as such.