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 . 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 the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India albeit in response to an order passed by a civil court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. vs. Vivek V. Gawde & Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3722, relying upon its judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam & Another vs. Chhabi Nath & Others reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 rendered by a three Judge Bench, paragraph No.25 of which is quoted in paragraph No.14 of the judgment of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. vs. Vivek V. Gawde & Others (supra) which reads as under:- “14. In view of such binding decision, the inescapable conclusion presenting itself is that the appellate order under challenge before the High Court was rendered by a civil court, and it is trite that orders passed by a civil court cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This point in law has been decisively reiterated in the 3-Judge Bench decision in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath4. This Court, while holding that an order of the civil court could only be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution, and not Article 226 thereof, ruled that: “25.***All the courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under Article 227. Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all the High Courts. Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. There are no precedents in India for the High Courts to issue writs to the subordinate courts. Control of working of the subordinate courts in dealing with their judicial orders is exercised by way of appellate or revisional powers or power of superintendence under Article 227. Orders of the civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts. While appellate or revisional jurisdiction is regulated by the statutes, power of superintendence under Article 227 is constitutional. The expression “inferior court” is not referable to the judicial courts, as rightly observed in the referring order [Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616 ] in paras 26 and 27 quoted above. *** 27. While appellate or revisional jurisdiction is regulated by the statutes, power of superintendence under Article 227 is constitutional. The expression “inferior court” is not referable to the judicial courts, as rightly observed in the referring order [Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616 ] in paras 26 and 27 quoted above. *** 27. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view [Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616 ] 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.” (Emphasis supplied) has reiterated the said settled principle of law. 9. As already indicated above, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed the offence of cheating, punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and in view of bar in issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing a judicial order passed in a criminal case by a judicial court, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this Writ Petition (Cr.). 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, is dismissed. 11. In view of disposal of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), the interim order granted vide order dated 20.02.2024, is vacated. 12. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.