1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9960 of 2008 RADHA DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 15.5.2008 Shri Yaduvansh Giri, Senior Advocate appears for Shri Mrigank Mauli, Advocate and Shri Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate’s clerk. Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate appears for Shri Vinay Mistry, another Advocate. The above named three persons were issued notice to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for the reason that in spite of Cr. Misc. No. 2833 of 2008 being filed earlier in time with the same prayer for bail, another petition for the same petitioner Most. Radha Devi was presented before this Court, vide Cr. Misc. No. 9960 of 2008 and in paragraph 2 of the latter petition a statement was made, as is required to be made, that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for grant of anticipatory or regular bail in the matter. As may appear from the above submissions on facts, the statement made in Cr. Misc. No. 9960 of 2008 was patently false and misleading, inasmuch as there was already a petition pending with same prayer, vide 2 Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2833 of 2008. Misleading a court tantamounts to scandalizing it and, as such, the statement which was made on oath appeared to this Court an act of contempt. Making statement falsely or against the real state of facts is always prone to misleading the Court leading to passing two conflicting orders which are all the more scandalizing the Court and that could also be detrimental to the authority of the Court. This is the reason that such acts are treated contempt of the Court. Shri Giri, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Ashutosh Kumar,Advocate, appearing for three persons served with notices as directed by order dated 5.3.2008 in this petition, make out a case of bona fide mistake on account of being misled by some beneficiaries of the petitioner who presented the Vakalatnama obtained from jail custody to the counsel. The further defence is that Mithilesh Kumar Singh was not the real clerk working with Shri Vinay Mistry who had obtained the power and whose clerk was absent on the day of filing of the petition and, as such, the filing was entrusted to Mithilesh Kumar Singh. The defence of bona fide mistake does not 3 carry much weight with me, inasmuch as it might be a possibility that Shri Vinay Mistry could not have received the power bearing the L.T.I. of the petitioner Most.Radha Devi but the truth is that Shri Brigank Mauli signed the power. Admittedly, the clerk Mithilesh Kumar Singh has been registered as an Advocate’s clerk under Shri Mrigank Mauli, Advocate. There is no ground or reason to disbelieve that filing of the subsequent petition was not with full knowledge of the fact as to what the Advocates and the clerk were doing together. However, it might be a fact as there is nothing to controvert or displace the possibility that the Advocates or the clerk might not have the knowledge of the pendency of the earlier petition bearing Cr. Misc. No. 2833 of 2008. On this score a case of doubt as regards the acts being unintentional appears made out, considering which I discharge the above named three persons from the obligation of the rule issued against each of them. However, that could not be without handing over a note of caution to them as the act which prompted this Court to issue a rule could not be an act of contempt 4 only, the serious part of the same is that it dents the sheen of the profession and the dignity of Advocates. Rule is discharged and the matter is dropped. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )