OR. CR. MISC. (DB) No.3 OF 2005 THE STATE OF BIHAR--------------------------------------------Appellant Versus JAMSHED BEY-------------------------------------------------Respondent --------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Harendra Prasad Singh, G.A.VI Dr.Kumar Amitesh, Advocate For the opposite party : Mr.Narendra Prasad, Senior Advocate Mr.Anil Kumar Sinha, Mr.Akasdeep, Advocates. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ---------- C.K.Prasad, J: On a reference being made by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, a proceeding for committing criminal contempt has been initiated against Jamshed Bey (hereinafter referred to as the Contemnor). Contemnor was respondent in a Matrimonial case filed by his wife for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. The conduct of the contemnor of abusing the lawyer representing the other side in the said proceeding is highly reapprehensible. His conduct deserves to be viewed more seriously as he claims to be a lawyer practicing before the Supreme Court. In fact his conduct of making uncalled for allegation came to be noticed by the Supreme Court and a contempt proceeding was initiated against him. Later on he tendered unqualified and unconditional apology. The Supreme Court by its order dated 15.12.2000 passed in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.882 of 1999 did not thought it proper to take further action. In this proceeding also he had tendered unqualified and unconditional apology. 2 Mr.Narendra Prasad, Senior Advocate, appearing on his behalf submits that on account of matrimonial discord the contemnor had lost its cool and used unparliamentary words which ought not to have been and in that view of the matter the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by him be accepted and he be let of. Government Advocate No.VI, appears on behalf of the State. We are deeply anguished by the conduct of the contemnor and at one stage we were inclined to reject his unconditional apology. He ought to have exercised great caution and care in his behaviour and that was expected of him more than anybody else as he claims to be lawyer practicing before the Supreme Court of India. However as he depicted this conduct while defending a matrimonial case lodged by his wife for divorce and custody of child and his young career may not come to an end, we accept his unconditional and unqualified apology. However while doing so we would like to caution him that he should be responsible in his behaviour and conduct in future. Accordingly, the unconditional and unqualified apology is accepted and the rule is discharged. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J) Jayanandan Singh, J : I agree. (Jayanandan Singh, J ) Patna High Court Dated, 20th May, 2008. Narendra/ NAFR