IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56540 of 2007 BAIJNATH SINGH Versus The STATE OF BIHAR --with-- Cr.Misc. No.56563 of 2007 BAIJNATH SINGH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shaligram Singh 3. Sarjan Singh 4. Balram Singh 5. Binod Singh 6. Jayram Singh 7. Ravi Shankar Singh 8. Hari Shankar Singh All the R/o Vill. Banahi, P.S. Nauhatta, Dist. Rohtas. with Cr.Misc. No.56562 of 2007 BAIJNATH SINGH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Hari Shankar Singh ------- 6/ 04.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. These applications have been filed for transferring Complaint Case No. 704 of 2000, Complaint Case No. 719 of 2000/Tr. No. 896 of 2006 and Complaint Case No. 471(c) of 2007 respectively. Merit of all the above three cases having no inter connection save and except the submission of the lawyer that all the two of the cases are false have been filed due to influence of complainants and his brother. Both the complainants are practicing lawyers of Rohtas and Sasaram. Complaint Case No. 704 of 2000 is filed on behalf of the petitioner against both the brothers and their family members. Further, it is submitted that both the lawyers either in 2 capacity of complainant or in capacity of accused used their influence for which two of the order passed in Complaint Case No. 719 of 2000, Trial No.667 of 2007 are referred. On 31.10.2006 complainant Ravi Shanker Singh was to produce witness and on his failure a cost of Rs. 50/- was imposed to adjourn the case. On 07.02.2007 a petition was filed on behalf of the complainant to exempt him from paying the cost which is denied but while passing the order, several observations are made. Order was passed in two parts before lunch and after lunch. Observations, if any, made that was after lunch and that is to the effect that Hari Shanker Singh, brother of the complainant and complainant himself who are lawyer committed misconduct in the Court. An attempt was made on his behalf to misbehave the petitioners’ lawyer. Court’s work was hampered for ten minutes but act of complainant and his brother, lawyer was never appreciated by the Court rather was observed against the prestige of the Court. Thereafter, time was taken for filing the revision against petitioners’ lawyer it was told by them that the case was personal but that was unheard making comment that he was concerned with his profession and was uninfluenced. The act of the Court as well as of the lawyer for the petitioner is appreciated and accepted, but as told the petitioner is resident of Jharkhand having some property in complainant’s village and parties are litigating for that several cases are there in between the both including civil cases. The circumstance appeared and pointed out appears not sufficient for transfer of those cases. 3 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the above applications for transfer of cases are dismissed. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)