ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. 1. The instant Misc. Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 16.05.2017 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.5, Metropolitan Jodhpur in Criminal Case Nos.534/2017 (CRLMP No.4231/2017), 532/2017 (CRLMP No.4228/17), 533/2017 (CRLMP No.4236/2017) & 531/2017 (CRLMP No.4237/2017) whereby the learned Magistrate stated substance of accusation on him as well as the orders dated 14.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro in Criminal Revision Nos.441/2017, 443/2017, 440/2017 & 438/2017 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the revision petitions filed by the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner and his son. It is an admitted fact that the the disputed cheque was not signed by the accused Jagmohan, but by his son, Sawan Parihar. The petitioner was summoned by the learned trial Court after taking cognizance of the offence. At a subsequent stage, vide orders dated 16.05.2017, substance of accusation was stated to him and the matter was posted for further proceeding in the trial Court. The petitioner made challenge to the orders dated 16.05.2017 by way of filing the aforesaid revision petitions, which were dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide orders dated 14.11.2017. hence the instant Misc. Petitions. 3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the orders impugned and the other material available on record. 4. To appreciate the legal issue involved, it is necessary to reproduce Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, which reads as under:- 251. Substance of accusation to be stated. - When in a summons-case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. 5. - When in a summons-case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. 5. Upon careful and meticulous consideration of the impugned orders, along with a detailed review of the factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial court’s action in stating the substance of the accusation to the petitioner does not suffer from any material irregularity or legal infirmity that would warrant interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The learned revisional court, with due judicial diligence, has examined the legality, propriety, and correctness of the order passed by the trial court and has recorded a concurrent finding in support of the dismissal of the petition. In light of these findings, this Court is unable to discern any error that would necessitate interference with the orders passed by the lower courts. However, it is important to clarify on the procedure under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), as it constitutes a distinct and specific stage in the criminal trial process. Stating the substance of the accusation under Section 251 Cr.P.C. is not a step where the merits of the case are determined. Rather, it serves as an essential procedural safeguard, ensuring that the accused is properly informed of the charges against them. This step is different to the broader framework established by Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C., which outline the procedures for framing charges in criminal cases. Specifically, Section 251 Cr.P.C. requires the Magistrate to state the substance of the accusation in clear terms to the accused so that there remain no ambiguity and he would be able to defend his case appropriately. This is a procedural requirement aimed at giving the accused the opportunity to respond to the charge and plead guilty or not guilty. It is not, however, a stage for the court to evaluate the evidence in detail or determine the guilt of the accused. That task is reserved for the trial Court to do after having all material evidence on record. 6. It is important to distinguish the procedural function of Section 251 Cr.P.C. from the full trial process. It is not, however, a stage for the court to evaluate the evidence in detail or determine the guilt of the accused. That task is reserved for the trial Court to do after having all material evidence on record. 6. It is important to distinguish the procedural function of Section 251 Cr.P.C. from the full trial process. The function of stating the accusation under Section 251 is merely to bring to the attention of the accused the charges they are facing. The formal framing of charges is addressed in Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C., which apply to Sessions Courts and Magistrate’s Courts, respectively. The purpose of these sections is to ensure that charges are framed only when there is a prima facie case, supported by sufficient evidence, to proceed to trial. This is a stage where the accused is appraised about the gist of allegations against him. Therefore, in the context of the instant cases, the learned trial court’s action in stating the substance of the accusation does not represent a determination of the merits or sufficiency of the evidence. It is a procedural step that does not necessitate any immediate evaluation of the underlying evidence. The mere fact that the trial court proceeded to state the substance of the accusation and move forward to commence the trial does not reflect any legal irregularity. Both the trial court and the revisional court have followed the appropriate legal procedures, and their concurrent findings cannot be deemed to be perverse or manifestly incorrect. The contentions raised in the present petition seek to re-agitate matters that have already been thoroughly adjudicated upon by the lower courts. Essentially, the petition is an attempt to invoke a second revisional jurisdiction under the guise of a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which is impermissible in law. Section 482 Cr.P.C. confers upon the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. However, such powers must be exercised with caution and only in exceptional circumstances where the lower courts have committed an error that affects the course of justice. The present petition does not present any such exceptional circumstance and is therefore not an appropriate use of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to make interference in the orders under assail. The present petition does not present any such exceptional circumstance and is therefore not an appropriate use of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to make interference in the orders under assail. This Court is of the view that there is a concurrent finding of the two courts below, in which no interference is warranted and the present Misc. Petitions are nothing but a second revision petition in disguise of the Misc. Petition and under different nomenclature which is barred by law as provided under sub-clause(3) of the Section 397 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, there is no force in the instant Misc. Petitions, the same deserve to be and are hereby dismissed and the proceedings in the trial court shall continue in accordance with the law. The stay petitions also stand disposed of.