ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the respondents informs that the petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance dated 17/06/2019 in these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. These petitions were filed on 21/04/2022. Prior to filing of these petitions before this court, after hearing the parties, the trial court decided to frame charges on 21/02/2022. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that framing of the charges would not be a bar to challenge the cognizance order if the cognizance order was itself bad in law leading to miscarriage of justice. 3. Counsel further submits that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is wide enough to entertain the prayer at any stage if the court finds that there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice in the case. 4. One thing is evident that on 21/02/2022, the learned trial Judge passed the following order:- Þifjoknh vf/koDrk mifLFkrA vfHk;qDr nhid dqekj e; vf/koDrk mifLFkrA vkjksi lkjka'k ij cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ifjokn esa of.kZr nLrkostksa dks ekSf[kd lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr nhid dqekj ds fo:) vkjksi lkjka'k /kkjk 138 izjØkE; fy[kr vf/k- 1881 ds rgr vkjksi lkjka'k fyf[kr :i esa lquk;k x;kA vfHk;qDr }kjk vkjksi dks vLohdkj fd;k x;k vkSj vUoh{kk pkghA vfHk;qDr dks ijØkE; fy[kr vf/k- 1881 dh /kkjk 143 d ds rgr pSd dh jkf'k dk 20 izfr'kr jkf'k nks ekg ds vnaj ckcr varfje izfrdj ds :i esa ifjoknh dks lank; djsA i=koyh okLrs lk{; ifjoknh ,oa lank;xh gsrq fnukad 25-04-2022 dks is'k gksAß 5. Since the parties were heard at the stage of charge and after hearing the parties, the court decided to frame charge and that order already stands as such previous order of cognizance cannot be looked into in exercise of power of under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Hence, these petitions are dismissed as devoid of any merit. 7. The petitioners may opt to challenge the order of charge, if so advised.