JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J. - This application has been moved by Subhash Kumar Gupta- applicant/respondent No.5 in CRM No.71586-M of 2005 seeking modification/clarification of order dated 23.4.2008 passed by this Court. 2. As averred in this application, CRM No.71586-M of 2005 was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity the Code) by the petitioner Sunil Kumar for issuance of direction to register an FIR against respondents Subhash Kumar Gupta, Raman Garg and Vinod Garg, Proprietors of M/s Shivaji Traders, Overlook Road, Milerganj, Ludhiana in view of the order dated 12.7.2005 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Joint Director, Prosecution and Litigation, Ludhiana, which was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.4.2008 with a direction to the SSP, Ludhiana to take action as warranted by law on the report/opinion of Joint Director, Prosecution and Litigation, Ludhiana dated 12.7.2005. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the present applicant-respondent No.5 in their reply to the aforesaid petition have specifically replied that after the receipt of report/opinion dated 12.7.2005 of Joint Director, Prosecution and Litigation, Ludhiana, an enquiry has been got conducted by the ADGP, Crime from AIG, Crime on the application dated 25.11.2005 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had also participated in the aforesaid enquiry and failed to substantiate the allegations leveled against the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in the aforesaid petition and also failed to produce any document to show and prove the alleged embezzlement. On this, a detailed enquiry report dated 09.01.2006 (Annexure A2) has been submitted by the AIG, Crime, wherein he has categorically stated that no embezzlement as alleged have been found committed, whereas there was only loss which had occurred in the company. In view of this, he had recommended that no further action is required in pursuance to the allegations levelled by the petitioner in his complaints. Thereafter, the SSP, Ludhiana vide his letter Nos.2463-65 dated 23.05.2006 (Annexure A3) and 2521-22 dated 30.05.2006 (Annexure A4) addressed to Director General of Police, Punjab and Additional Director General of Police, Crime-cum-Economic Offence Wing respectively had also recommended that there is no need to take any further action on the basis of the allegations levelled by the petitioner in his complaints, because no embezzlement has been found to have been committed. In view of the fact enumerated hereinbefore, it is clear that the allegations having been levelled by the petitioner against the aforementioned respondents Subhash Kumar Gupta and others in the aforesaid petition are false and frivolous in view of the detailed inquiry conducted by the AIG, Crime in terms of his report dated 9.1.2006. Therefore, the order dated 23.4.2008 may be modified/clarified in view of the facts and circumstances enumerated in this application. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. 4. Mr.Vaneet Soni, Advocate representing applicant/respondent No.5 submitted that in consequence of the death of Subhash Kumar Gupta during the pendency of this application, he has ceased to be his counsel. As per the photostat copy of the death certificate, Subhash Kumar Gupta breathed his last on 16.10.2008. Mr. Vijay K.Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has urged with great eloquence that this application is untenable in view of the observations rendered by the Apex Court in re: State represented by DSP, SB CID, Chennai v. K.V. Rajendran and others, 2008(5) RAJ 355 : (2008)8 Supreme Court Cases 673. 5. Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 7-Vinod Garg argued that indeed Annexures A-2 to A-4 were not brought to the notice of this Court, while passing the order dated 23.4.2008 and that being so, the order merely requires modification. 6. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. On the basis of Annexures A-2 to A-4, this Court has been persuaded to review the order dated 23.4.2008. If by taking these documents into consideration, the order dated 23.4.2008 is modified, it will amount to its alteration/review by reopening the matter, which cannot be done in view of the ratio decidendi laid down in re: K.V.Rajendran and others (supra). As ruled by the Apex Court in re: Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, 2001 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 113 "There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorising the High Court to review its judgment passed either in exercise of its appellate or revisional or original criminal jurisdiction. Such a power cannot be exercised with the aid or under the cloak of Section 482 of the Code. Such a power cannot be exercised with the aid or under the cloak of Section 482 of the Code. Section 362 Criminal Procedure Code has extended the bar of review not only to judgment but also to the final orders other than the judgment. Section 362 is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court, the said court in the absence of statutory provision becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief, unless the former order is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The court becomes functus officio, the moment the official order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or an arithmetical error." 7. It can be culled out from the above observations, that Section 362 ibid has extended the bar of review to the final orders. Thus, the final order dated 23.4.2008 cannot be reviewed or altered, as this Court has become functus officio qua the same. Earlier vide this order, the direction has been given to register the case and if the same is ordered to be withdrawn, it will amount to a conflicting decision under the garb of exercise of inherent power. 8. In re: Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, 1990 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 327, the Apex Court has held as under: "3.....The inherent power under Section 482 is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and to secure ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something, which is expressly barred under the Code. If any consideration of the facts by way of review is not permissible under the Code and is expressly barred, it is not for the court to exercise its inherent power to reconsider the matter and record a conflicting decision.If there had been change in the circumstances of the case, it would be in order for the High Court to exercise its inherent powers in the prevailing circumstances and pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. Where there is no such changed circumstances and the decision has to be arrived at on the facts that existed as on the date of the earlier order, the exercise of the power to reconsider the same materials to arrive at different conclusion is in effect a review, which is expressly barred under Section 362." 9. It is the specific plea of the applicant that Annexures A-2 to A-4 did exist on 23.4.2008 when the order was passed. It is abundantly and manifestly clear from the above observations that where there is no such changed circumstances and the decision has to be arrived at on the facts that existed as on the date of the earlier order, the exercise of the power to reconsider the same materials to arrive at different conclusion is in effect a review, which is expressly barred under Section 362 of the Code. If by taking into consideration Annexures A-2 to A-4, the Court arrives at a different conclusion, at this stage, when it has already become functus officio, it will amount to review of the order, which is expressly barred under Section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code 10. In view of the preceding discussion, this application is dismissed being not maintainable. However, if the applicants intend that the order be passed on the basis of Annexures A-2 to A-4, they would be at liberty to file a fresh petition under Section 482 of the Code. Application dismissed