IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29175 of 2010 AZRA IMAM Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 11.8.2010. Heard. On the fact of the allegations and in the light of the amendment affected in the Indian Penal Code, repealing provisions of Section 161 and 162 of the IPC, it was improper on the part of the learned Magistrate to have summoned the petitioner for committing those offences under Section 161 and 162 of the IPC. The order to that extent appears act and the same is struck down. As regards the other offences, the order appears perfectly passed and the same is sustained. The complainant is an Advocate working in courts and the witnesses whose name appears in the complaint petition also Advocate and an Advocate Clerk. The court trusts that the advocates who are either the complainant or the witnesses; are properly trained to appreciate the dignity of their profession and the importance of pardoning an offender, if one has really committed an offence. Our society lives - 2 - on the principle of pardoning an offender and thereby maintaining cohesion and good relationship in the society. I would recommend the complainant to consider this sentiment of the court and if the petitioner approaches him through the Secretary of the District Bar Association, Nawadah, he shall pardon her and file a compromise petition. Peace of mind for an advocate is always truthful. He cannot do good by getting entangled himself in litigation. This petition is dismissed with the above observations and in expectation as recorded. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )