JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order taking cognizance dated 27.07.2017 and order dated 08.09.2017 by which his discharge petition filed under section 239 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 2. Plea taken by the petitioner is that it was the case filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as a counter-blast to which, the informant has instituted Jharia P.S. Case No. 117 of 2017 to wreck-vengeance on him. 3. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner to fortify the aforesaid plea raised on behalf of the petitioner relies on the judgment in “State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others” reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 4. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that if during the investigation materials constituting the offence have been collected, mala-fide, if any, of the complainant/informant becomes secondary [refer, “State of Bihar and Another vs. J.A.C. Saldanha and others” reported in (1980) 1 SCC 554 ]. On the ground that the criminal case vide Jharia P.S. Case No. 117 of 2017 has been lodged by the informant with malafide intention, as a counter-blast to the case filed by the petitioner for which cognizance of offence has been taken, the order rejecting the discharge petition cannot be interfered with by this Court. Once finding sufficient materials on record cognizance of the offence has been taken by the court and the discharge petition filed by the accused-petitioner has been dismissed holding that a prima-facie case has been been made out against the accused, the plea of mala-fide of the complainant must fail. At this stage, only after the accused-petitioner demonstrates that no legally admissible evidence constituting the offence under section 354 IPC is on record, or that the order taking cognizance is without jurisdiction, in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure orders dated 27.07.2017 and 08.09.2017 cannot be quashed. By now it is widely accepted that at the stage under section 190 Cr.P.C. and the framing of charge, all that the court concerned is required to find out whether materials for constituting the offence as alleged are, prima-facie, available in the record or not. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and specific finding recorded by the court in its orders dated 27.07.2017 and 08.09.2017, no ground is made out for interference in the matter and accordingly, Cr. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and specific finding recorded by the court in its orders dated 27.07.2017 and 08.09.2017, no ground is made out for interference in the matter and accordingly, Cr. M. P. No. 573 of 2018 is dismissed.