IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.284 of 2011 HEMANT KUMAR SON OF LATE JAGDISH PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHAIRIYA, P.S. KUSELA, DISTRICT KATIHAR, ADVOCATE, PRECTICING AT PURNEA CIVIL COURT, REGISTRTION NO. 931/97 Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, MAIN SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS, BIHAR, MAIN SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PURNEA 4. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PURNEA 5. DIRECTOR, C.B.I., NEW DELHI ----------- 2 18.05.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State, the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) as also the counsel for the Intervenor namely, Rupam Pathak. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the complainant of Complaint Case No. 279 (C ) of 2011 Rupam Pathak was his client, and as such, this writ application has been filed by this petitioner being an ex- lawyer of the complainant with the prayer that the said complaint be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) for its investigation. Learned counsel for the State submits that this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner, who was the ex-lawyer of the complainant of the aforesaid complaint case, is absolutely not maintainable and is a frivolous writ petition. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor, Rupam Pathak, opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the intevenor has not filed the above complaint and as such there is no question of its enquiry or investigation. Learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) also opposes the submissions. Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the averments made in the writ application, it appears that the present writ application has been filed by the petitioner claiming him to be the ex-lawyer of the complainant namely, Rupam Pathak with prayer that the aforesaid complaint case be handed over to the C.B.I. for investigation, however the intervenor vide I.A. No. 1060 of 2011 has stated that no such complaint was filed by her bearing her signature. It is further stated therein that the writ petitioner is not her lawyer and he has no authority to file the present writ application. In view of the above, the writ application filed by the present petitioner is absolutely not maintainable and without any substance. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)