Judicial orders of criminal courts are not subject to quashing by writs under Article 226; a prima facie case requires the accused to face trial.

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings and the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Gumla in connection with G.R. No.222 of 2023 arising out of Raidih P.S. Case no.42 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 , 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi rejected the petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of the petitioner who is the accused person of that case.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, cheated and dishonestly induced the informant of Rs.8,00,000/- which has been transferred to the account of the petitioner for selling a land but he has not sold the land, nor returned the money. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Gumla considered the settled principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie case has to be seen and observed that there is sufficient material in the record to prima facie constitute the offence for framing of charges and dismissed the discharge petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are false and the co-accused has given undertaking before the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla that she will return the money. It is next submitted that the petitioner is making earnest efforts to compensate the damages and loss suffered by the informant. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), be allowed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State relies upon the Full Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Ravi @ Ram Prasad & Etc. vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 1987 SCC OnLine Pat 83 and submits that judicial orders of a criminal court (stricto sensu under the Code of Criminal Procedure, are not amenable to quashing by a writ of certiorari. It is next submitted that otherwise also there is sufficient material in the record to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code . Therefore, it is submitted that this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, be dismissed.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajbir Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2006) 4 SCC 51: AIR 2006 SC 1963 that when F.I.R. makes out a commission of an offence there cannot be any order of discharge and then the accused must face trial.

7. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is direct allegation against the petitioner is of cheating and inducing the informant to part with Rs.8,00,000/-. The contention of the petitioner that the allegation against her is false, is a defence which she can take during the trial but certainly the same cannot be a ground for discharge. The Full Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Ravi @ Ram Prasad & Etc. vs. State of Bihar & Others (supra) answered the question “Whether the judicial orders of a criminal court (stricto sensu) under the Code of Criminal Procedure, are amenable to quashing by a writ of certiorari?” by observing thus in paragraph No.36 which reads as under:-

“36. In the light of the foregoing discussions the answer to the question No. (iv) posed at the very outset is rendered in the negative and it is held that the judicial orders of a criminal court stricto sensu under the Code of Criminal Procedure are not amenable to quashing by a writ of certiorari.”

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India albeit in response to an order passed by a civil court in t