ORDER : G.S. AHLUWALIA, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking permission to compromise the case. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the respondent filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the allegations that the applicant had given cheques which stood bounced. 3. The applicant was convicted by the Trial Court and being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the applicant filed a Criminal Appeal, which too was dismissed. 4. Thereafter, Criminal Revisions Nos.2209/2016 and 2211/2016 were preferred before this Court, which too were dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 28-3-2017. 5. It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that after the dismissal of the Criminal Revisions, the parties have settled their dispute and now the complainant wants to withdraw his complaints. 6. It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that the Supreme Court in the case of K. Subramanian Vs. R. Rajathi reported in (2010) 15 SCC 352 had allowed the review application and had permitted the parties to compound the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, therefore, the review application is maintainable even after the dismissal of the Criminal Revision. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Section 362 of Cr.P.C. reads as under : 362. Court not to alter judgment.— Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770 has held as under : 47. This Court by virtue of Article 137 of the Constitution has been invested with an express power to review any judgment in criminal law and while no such power has been conferred on the High Court, inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code itself. (Vide State v. K.V. Rajendran [ (2008) 8 SCC 673 ]). 9. (Vide State v. K.V. Rajendran [ (2008) 8 SCC 673 ]). 9. Thus, this Court has no jurisdiction to review its order in view of specific bar as contained under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. Thus, in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Davinder Singh Bhullar (Supra), it is held that the present application seeking review of the judgment dated 28-3-2017 passed by this Court in the Criminal Revision No.2209/2016 is not maintainable. 10. Hence, this application is dismissed as not maintainable. ORDER : Post for 16/11/2017.