Point of Law:
Orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private person not discharging any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from Article 226.

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Learned APP wavies service of rule on behalf of respondent-Sate and Mr.Sudhir Khanna, learned advocate wavies service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jayesh A. Dave for the petitioners original accused, learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent No.1 State and its authorities and learned advocate Mr. Sudhir M. Khanna for respondent No.2 original complainant.

2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners praying following reliefs:-

“14(b) Issue a writ of and in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction for setting aside order dated 13-1-2015 passed by the Ld. 6th addl. Sessions Judge Bhuj-Kutchh in Criminal Revision Application No.119 of 2014 and restore the order dated 10-9-2014 passed by the Ld. 3rd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhuj-Kutchh in Criminal Case No.1488 of 2007.

(c) Pending the hearing and/or final disposal of this petition be pleased to stay the implementation and execution of the order dated 13-1-2015 passed by the Ld. 6th Addl. Sessions Judge Bhuj-Kutchh in Criminal Revision Application No.119 of 2014 and also stay the further proceedings of criminal case No.1488 of 2007 pending in the court of Ld. 3rd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhuj-Kutchh.”

3. The facts, leading to filing of present Special Criminal Application, can be recapitulated as under:-

3.1 The petitioners original accused were in need of money for their profession and therefore, they took a loan from the original complainant for an amount of Rs.33 Lakhs by way of cheque dated 30.12.2006 of Corporation Bank, Madhapar Branch and the said amount is realized in the petitioners' account. As against the said loan, the petitioners gave promissory note dated 30.12.2006 and also cheque for the amount of Rs.33 Lakhs as security of the State Bank of India, Madhapar Branch and the petitioners also gave original documents of their plot No.19 situated at Anjar as further security. As the petitioner could not repay the amount and the cheques were returned on 29.3.2007 with endorsement of “Fund Insufficient”, the petitioners gave another cheque to the complainant which was deposited on 13.6.2007 and which also was dishonoured on 13.6.2007. Upon assurance by the petitioners, the said cheque was redeposited on 30.6.2007, however, the said cheque was again dishonoured with endorsement “Fund Insufficient”. The notice was issued by the complainant and as payments were not made, the complainant filed criminal complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj Kutchh on 10.8.2007 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I.Act) as well as under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) being criminal case No.1488 of 2007.

3.2 The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj Kutchh in the proceedings before him, acquitted both the accused persons due to lack of evidence.

3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the original complainant filed revision application being Criminal Revision Application No.119 of 2014 before the learned Sessions Court, Bhuj wherein learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj vide order dated 13.1.2015 allowed the said revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and set aside the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and while remanding the matter, also directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to conduct the trial as per the observations in his order. Resultantly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the case was required to be tried under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (N.I.Act).

3.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj in Criminal Revision Application No.119 of 2014 dated 13.1.2015, the petitioners original accused persons have preferred present petition, in form of Special Criminal Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and