IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44447 of 2007 1. Pravin Kumar Choubey, S/o Sri Jata Shankar Chaubey. 2. Mikki Choubey, W/o Sri Pravin Kumar Chaubey. Residing at H/o Sri Sheo Sharma, Sri Krishana Nagar Road No.23, P.S. Budha Colony, District Patna-1. --------- Petitioners Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Niraj Chandrayavi, S/o Nawal Kishore Prasad. R/o 404, Ashiana Plaza, Budh Marg, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna-1. --------- Opposite Parties ----------- 6 19.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the opposite party no.2. The order taking cognizance dated 24.7.2007 in this case for offence under Section 323/379/427 of the Indian Penal Code is sought to be assailed on the ground that the petitioner no.1 being an advocate of Ajay Kumar Singh, the main accused, had no concern save and except defending his case in the court. As with regard to petitioner no.2, the wife of petitioner no.1, it is said that she had no concern even with the professional dealings of her husband and therefore, whatever has been stated by the complainant opposite party no.2 as against the petitioner no.1, namely, Pravin Kumar Choubey and 2 petitioner no.2, namely, Mikki Choubey, is only on account of defending the case of the main accused. It is also submitted that one Abhay Kumar Choubey, the own brother of the petitioner no.1, had some business dealings with the complainant opposite party no. 2 and it was in order to protect the interest of his aforesaid brother that the petitioner no.1 had been discharging his professional duty when such absurd and/or baseless allegations of his misbehaviour with opposite party no. 2 had been made in the complaint petition simply in order to put pressure on the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the petitioner no.1 is ready to give a written apology to the opposite party no.2 for any inadvertent act/omission on his part which has made opposite party no.2 aggrieved. He also submits that the role of the petitioner no.1 remains confined only to as a professional lawyer and the opposite party no.2 seems to be aggrieved because in other cases also filed on behalf of his brother Abhay Kumar Choubey, the petitioner 3 no.1 was/is his lawyer. Considering all these aspects, this Court would hold that if the petitioner no.1 would give a written apology in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and file it in the court below, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 shall stand dropped. It is, however, made clear that the criminal proceedings against the rest of the accused persons will continue without being prejudiced by this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)