JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuing appropriate writ/order/direction to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 08.09.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case No. 1030 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Special Judge has found sufficient materials involving the offences punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and under Section 341/323/379/354/504/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered for issuance of summons. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation against the petitioners is that the victim was a minor girl on the date of occurrence. On 02.02.2022 between 6:30 P.M. to 07:00 P.M., the petitioner no.1 caught hold of the victim and attempted to kiss her. The victim somehow managed to escape from the clutches of the petitioner no.1 and intimated the matter to her maternal aunt and the maternal aunt of the victim came out from her house and raised hue and cry. The petitioners being armed with hockey stick and iron rod assaulted the grandfather of the victim causing injuries to him. The petitioner nos. 4 to 7 assaulted the family members of the victim and snatched away the gold chain of the victim. Many people assembled there and thereafter the petitioners went away from the place of occurrence after threatening. It was also alleged that the petitioner no.1 was keeping an evil eye upon the victim and the grandfather of the victim once gave an oral report to the police and the petitioner no.1 went to the police station and told that he will not repeat the same again. On the basis of the written application filed by the grandfather of the victim, Marafari P.S. Case No. 15 of 2022 was registered and police took up investigation of the case. Police submitted the Final Form and did not send up the petitioners for trial because of lack of evidence against them. On the basis of the written application filed by the grandfather of the victim, Marafari P.S. Case No. 15 of 2022 was registered and police took up investigation of the case. Police submitted the Final Form and did not send up the petitioners for trial because of lack of evidence against them. As the informant-grandfather of the victim died on 08.11.2022, the victim filed protest petition and on the basis of the protest petition, statement under solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Special Judge found prima facie case for the said offence against the petitioners as already indicated above. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was dispute between the families and for taking revenge, this false case has been foisted with an intention to harass the family members of the petitioners and to pressurize them to withdraw the case filed by them against the alleged victim and her family members. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this writ petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as made by the writ petitioners in this writ petition and submits that this writ petition is not maintainable as by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ of certiorari cannot be issued to quash a judicial order passed by the learned Special Judge in C.P. Case No. 1030 of 2023 dated 08.09.2023. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the only ground upon which the petitioners have sought quashing of the said cognizance order is that the allegation against the petitioners are false and this case has been foisted to harass the petitioners but same at best can be a defence of the petitioners in a full dressed trial but the defence of the petitioners cannot be considered at this stage in a writ petition to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after 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 Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Ravi @ Ram Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1987 SCC OnLine Pat 83 in answer to 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:- “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.” 7. This settled principle of law has been reiterated by 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 & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3722 and relying upon its judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. (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 & Ors. (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 Nath. This point in law has been decisively reiterated in the 3-Judge Bench decision in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath. 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. 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) 8. In view of the settled principle of law, this Court has no hesitation in holding that certainly a writ of certiorari cannot be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order passed by a judicial court. Scope of Article 227 is different from Article 226.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. In view of the settled principle of law, this Court has no hesitation in holding that certainly a writ of certiorari cannot be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order passed by a judicial court. Otherwise also, the sole ground upon which the petitioners have sought quashing of the order by which the learned Special Judge has found prima facie case of the offences is that the allegation against the petitioners is false but such a plea, as has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the State, can be taken as a defence during a full dressed trial of the case but the veracity of the same is not open to be tested in a writ petition. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to allow the prayer made by the petitioners in this writ petition. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed.