ARVIND KUMAR TRIPAHTI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
(2.) THE present criminal misc. appli­cation under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to direct the Magistrate not to give effect to the non-bailable war­rant which has been issued on 26.2.2009.1.5.2009 and 8.6.2009 issued in case No. 1013 of 2008 and 1037 of 2008. Further prayer is to issue direction for de­ciding the discharge application of the applicant. Apart from that alternative oral request was made that matter might be re­ferred to the Mediation Centre. Counsel for the applicant submit­ted that the proceeding, is purely of civil nature, hence, the criminal prosecution was not maintainable. He relied the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Murari lal Gupta v. Gopi Singh, 2005 (13) SCC 699. Ear­lier Criminal Misc. Application No. 3405 of 2009 was filed with the prayer for quashing the summoning order dated 18.11.2008, which was finally disposed of on 24.2.2009. He contended that the second application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and another, 2007 (58) ACC 41 (SC) = 2007 (52) AIC 89 = (2007) 4 SCC 70. He contended that since the principle of res judicata is not ap­plicable in the criminal prosecution hence the second application under section 482 Cr.P.C is not barred.
(3.) THE objection of the counsel for op­posite party No. 2 is that second application is not' maintainable, and prima facie offence is made out hence, contention of the counsel is against the law laid down by the Apex Court.;