1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28-6-2008: passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st class. Bhagalpur, in connection with Tr. No. 2853 of 2008, arising out of Kotwali PS Case No. 0152 of 2000, for offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 120B of the I. P. C, whereby his representation under Section 317, Cr. P. C. was not accepted and as such his bail bond was cancelled, and non-bailable warrant (NBW) for arrest was also issued against him.

3. The facts of the case in short is as follows :

Pursuant to order dated 27-9-2000; passed by the Apex Court in S. L. A. (Cri) No. 3079 of 2000, the petitioner surrendered in the Court below and was released on bail. After taking of cognizance, the matter was transferred to the Court of Md. Sahid Khan, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bhagalpur for disposal. The petitioner duly appeared before the trial Court on transfer of case, who vide his order dated 5-3-2000 allowed the petitioner to remain on previous bail. However, the case remained pending, awaiting appearance of accused Prem Prakash Trivedi. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid fact would also transpire from orders of the trial Court including order dated 31-10-2005.

4. On 28-6-2008, the date fixed in the case, three out of four accused including the petitioner were represented under Section 317 of the Cr. P. C. The other accused Prem Prakash. Trivedi was as usual absent. The learned magistrate did not accept the representation under Section 317, Cr. P. C. and cancelled bail bond and issued NBW against the petitioner and others.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of representation under Section 317, Cr. P. C. and cancellation of bail bond and issuance of NBW by a composite order dated 28-6-2008, is in violation of provision of Section 317 of the Cr. P. C. itself.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that instant writ application is not maintainable. Furthermore, forfeiture of bond under Section 446, Cr. P. C. is appealable under Section 449, Cr. P. C. He further submits that under Section 317, Cr. P. C. the magistrate by one composite order can cancel the representation, bail bond and can issue NBW also.

7. As maintainability of the writ petition has also been raised by learned State counsel, this Court proceeds to examine the same also.

8. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has alternative remedy and could have filed quashing application instead of rushing to this Court in writ jurisdiction. In this respect, he relied upon decisions of the Apex Court in cases of Hari Vishnu Kamath V/s. Ahmad Ishaque and others, AIR 1955 SC 233, Surya Dev Rai V/s. Ram Chander Rai and others, AIR 2003 SC 3044, as well as Ranjit Singh V/s. Ravi Prakash, AIR 2004 SC 3892.

9. In case of Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra), the Apex Court laid down the circumstances in which writ of Certiorari can be issued. Extract of the judgment laid down in para 10 is quoted herein as follows :

"According to the common law of England certiorari is a high prerogative writ issued by the Court of the Kings Bench or Chancery to inferior Courts or tribunals in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction with a view to ensure that they acted within the bounds of their jurisdiction. To this end, they were commanded to transmit the records of a cause or matter pending with them to the superior Court to be dealt with there, and if the order was found to be without jurisdiction, it was quashed. The Court issuing certiorari to quash, however, could not substitute its own decision on the merits, or give directions to be complied with by the Court or the tribunal. Its work was destructive; it simply wiped out the order passed without jurisdiction and left the matter there."

10. In the case of Surya Deo Rai V. Ram Chander Rai (AIR 2003 SC 3044) (supra), the Apex Court in sub-paras (3) and (8) of para 38 extensively laid down