JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the cognizance order dated 12.03.2018 in connection with Economic Offences Case No. 15/2018, pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Dhanbad. 3. It has been alleged in the complaint filed by opposite party no. 2 before the learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Dhanbad that petitioner no. 2 on behalf of petitioner no. 1, being the principal officer deducted TDS amount of Rs. 1,02,900/- for the financial year 2013-14, but failed to credit the same to the account of the Central Government of India, TDS Ward, Dhanbad and on this background, the complaint case has been filed. The cognizance has been taken vide order dated 12.03.2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed petition for discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the learned court vide order dated 04.06.2022. He further submits that the cognizance order is bad in law and no case is made out against the petitioners. He also submits that the petitioners have already deposited the TDS amount and in view of the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Sonali Autos Private Limited vs. State of Bihar and Others in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 16498 of 2014 decided on 02.08.2017, the case of the petitioners is fit to be allowed. He further submits that there is no bar of quashing the cognizance order even after framing of the charge and dismissal of the discharge petition. He also relied upon the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Rabindra Nath Tiwari and Another vs. State of Bihar and Another, 2013 SCC Online Pat 1541. 5. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by way of reply, submits that as far as the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is concerned, the same is misplaced and also misconceived. 5. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by way of reply, submits that as far as the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is concerned, the same is misplaced and also misconceived. It is submitted that the present application was presented before the Registry of this Court on 05.02.2013 after the affidavit being affirmed on 04.02.2013, i.e. much before the order framing charge dated 22.02.2013 and thus the same could not have been incorporated in the present application. It is further submitted that the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in the case of Moti Lal Songara (supra) was in the background of a case in which the revisional court was not informed about framing of charge and an order was passed which was challenged before the High Court. In that background the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the said fact being suppressed at the time of passing of an order disentitled a party from relief as it amounted to playing fraud with the Court. In the present case, it is submitted that before the matter was heard by this Court, it has already been brought to the notice of the Court that charges have been framed and thus there cannot be any comparison between the factual matrix of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the present case as it cannot be said that this Court has been kept in the dark about framing of the charge and the matter has been finally decided. With regard to the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in the case of A.E. Rani (supra) he submits that in the said case, the fact was that there was a civil litigation pending between the parties with regard to partition of immovable property of the appellant's husband whereas the criminal case was with regard to forcible removal of moveable articles and thus there was no similarity between the two and both the civil and the criminal case required to be proceeded with and thus the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the criminal proceeding could not be quashed, whereas in the present case the dispute in the entire complaint was of a civil nature. Similarly, it is submitted that in the case of Kamala Devi Agarwal (supra) the allegation against the accused was of forgery of a document and thus pendency of a civil proceeding in which the said document was involved was not enough to quash the criminal proceedings merely because in a case of forgery there is some element of civil nature whereas in the present case there is no similarity on facts. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 do not come in the way of the petitioners seeking quashing of the present criminal case. In response to the submission of learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 of the present case having become infructuous due to subsequent framing of charge against the petitioners, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roy V.D. vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 8 SCC 590 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that power under Section 482 the Code can be exercised to quash proceeding where continuation of the same would amount to the abuse of the process of the Court and by making the accused undergo the ordeal of trial will amount to perpetuating an illegality resulting in great hardship to the accused.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Bhola Rana and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Another in Cr. M.P. No. 457 of 2009, decided on 15.01.2014 on the same point. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioners can challenge the cognizance order at any stage despite of the fact that discharge petition has been rejected by the learned court. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that the petitioner has already filed the discharge petition which has been rejected vide order dated 04.06.2022 and the said order is not under challenge. She further submits that once the discharge petition has been dismissed, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to challenge that order. She also submits that now the charge has already been framed. 2 submits that the petitioner has already filed the discharge petition which has been rejected vide order dated 04.06.2022 and the said order is not under challenge. She further submits that once the discharge petition has been dismissed, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to challenge that order. She also submits that now the charge has already been framed. She further submits that the learned court has rightly considered all aspects of the matter and has come to the conclusion that whatever has been argued here by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the subject matter of trial. 8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the materials on the record. It transpires that for non-violation of the statutory provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the complaint case has been filed and the learned court has taken cognizance vide order dated 12.03.2018. The petitioners have chosen to file discharge petition under Section 245 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the learned court vide order dated 04.06.2022. In the discharge petition, the learned court has considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and has come to the conclusion that no case of discharge is made out. The charge has already been framed. The ratio of the judgment, as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not in dispute. It is well settled that if no case is made out against the accused, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the case in hand, the petitioners have already chosen to file discharge petition under Section 245 Cr.P.C. which was rejected vide order dated 04.06.2022 and the said order has not been challenged and the cognizance order has been challenged. In this background, the contention of the petitioner is not tenable as the petitioners can challenge the cognizance order at any stage despite of the fact that discharge petition has been rejected by the learned court. 9. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. 10. Consequently, I.A. No. 7359 of 2022 stands disposed of.