Kashi Nath Pandey, J. - (1.) THIS application dated 4.5.10 has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge -sheet, dated 14.6.2009 in case crime No. 453 of 2009. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
(2.) IT is pertinent to mention here that regarding the same matter Crl. Misc. Application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No . 22763 of 2009 was moved by the petitioner and by order dated 9.9.2009 on the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre with the direction that applicant No. 1 Deepak shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5000/ -with the Mediation Centre by way of Bank draft drawn in favour of opposite party No. 2, Smt. Kamini Devi within two weeks. The Bank draft shall be handed over to the opposite party No. 2 on her appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date fixed. It was clarified that the amount meant to expenses to be incurred for attending the Mediation Centre by opposite party No. 2 but this condition could not have been complied by the petitioner within the time. Thereafter on the application of the applicant/petitioner Criminal Misc. Application No. 22763 of 2009 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.3.2010 by the court. It is also to be noted that in a case pending between the parties under Section 125 Cr.P.C. compromise deed dated 29.1.2010 was filed and accordingly Maintenance Case No. 221 of 2009 Kamini v. Deepak was decided vide order dated 25.2.2010. The Maintenance Application was rejected on the ground that the parties entered into compromise. They compromised to live with each other peacefully and Kamini expressed before the court that she is going with her husband to his house. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on the ground as mentioned in the old Crl. Misc. Application No. 22763 of 2009 which has been finally dismissed, therefore, there is no reason to entertain this second petition/application between the parties regarding the same fact.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submitted Criminal Appeal No. 5238 of 2004 State v. K.V. Rajendran, decided on 2.9.2008 by Hon'ble Supreme Court and argued that in view of the changed circumstances of compromise the petition/application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be entertained and it may be sent to the Mediation Centre, but I do not find any change of circumstances to entertain this second petition/application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because the parties have entered into compromise on 29.1.2010 and accordingly the case pending under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided on 25.2.10 and thereafter Criminal Misc. Application No. 22763 of 2009 has been dismissed vide order dated 12.3.2010. Therefore, there is no change of circumstances after 12.3.10 and before 4.5.2010, therefore, even on the ground of fact this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The ratio in the above Criminal Appeal No. 5238 of 2004 is that the court is barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C. to review its judgment, except in case of clerical and arithmetical error. Section 362 Cr.P.C. has extended the bar of review not only to the judgment but also to the final orders other than the judgment.;