JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report No. 10/1998 registered at the Police Station Fagi, Distt. Jaipur on January 5, 1998, under Sections 2014, 210, 420, 467, 468, 479, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief resume of the facts is that complainant Smt. Chanduri instituted a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate Dudu Distt. Jaipur on December 19, 1997. Learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Fagi where FIR No. 10/1998 came to be registered against the petitioner. The accusation against the petitioners is that in order to grab the land they got two sale deed s registered in their names, thereafter, they got attested mutations and instituted a suit bearing No. 210/ 1993 in the Court of Assistant Collector Dudu on June 30,1993 which was decreed on July 8,1993 and in pursuance of the decree of the Court, the petitioners became the khatedar tenant of the land. The petitioners having concealed the fact from the Revenue Court that the land belonged to a person of Schedule Caste, committed offence under Sections 209, 210, 420, 467, 468, 479 and 120-B, IPC. 3. Mr. Jagdeep Dhanker, learned Sr. Advocate canvassed that if fraud was played on the Court the Court only was competent to institute complaint in view of provisions contained in Section 195, Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel further contended that no offence is made out from the FIR and it deserves to be quashed looking to the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Cr.L.J. 526) . 4. Mr. B.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand contended that provisions of Section 195, Cr.P.C. do not prevent institution of FIR Mr. Chauhan, learned Counsel placed reliance on Ram Narain v. State (R.C.C. 1989, page 398 ) and Ukra and Others v. The State of Raj. (1993 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 518) to substantiate the arguments in respect of applicability of Section 195, Cr.P.C. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the case diary. 6. Section 195, Cr.P.C. does not prohibit investigation. Bar created by Section 195, Cr.P.C. is against taking cognizance and not against an investigation. (1993 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 518) to substantiate the arguments in respect of applicability of Section 195, Cr.P.C. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the case diary. 6. Section 195, Cr.P.C. does not prohibit investigation. Bar created by Section 195, Cr.P.C. is against taking cognizance and not against an investigation. So the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that only the Court was competent to institute a complaint, is misconceived and must abort. 7. It is now necessary to advert to the provisions contained in Section 78 of the Indian Penal Code, which escaped the attention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Section 78 of the Indian Penal Code, reads thus:- "78. Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court - Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court of Justice, is done whilst such judgment order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith, believes that the Court had such jurisdiction." "Section 20 of the Indian Procedure Code defines 'Court of justice' which denote a 'Judge' and a 'Judge' according to Section 12 of the Indian Procedure Code is a person who is empowered by law to give a definitive judgment in any legal proceedings. Section 3 of the Evidence Act defines 'Courts' as including all Judges and Magistrates and all persons except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence. Thus Court of Assistant Collector is a Court of Justice. 8. In view of Section 78 of the Indian Procedure Code , if the petitioners have become khatedar tenants of the land pursuant to the decree dated July 8, 1993 of the Assistant Collector Dudu, no offence is said to have been committed by them. If the Court of Assistant Collector in the eye of the complainant had illegally decreed the suit, the complainant could have availed the remedy of appeal and could assail the said decree before the competent Revenue Appellate Authority. Even the orders of the Mutations could have been called in question under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 or Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Even the orders of the Mutations could have been called in question under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 or Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. If registration of sale deeds was illegally effected, the complainant could have instituted a suit for cancellation of sale deeds in a competent Court. But unless the decree of a Revenue Court is set aside, it is final for all purposes and it can not be called in question in a criminal complaint. 9. The allegations made in the FIR if taken at their face value and accepted to their entirety, they do not constitute an offence and this is a fit case warranting quashing of FIR No. 10/1998. 10. Resultantly the petition stands allowed and the FIR No. 10/1998 registered at Police Station Fagi Distt. Jaipur under Sections 209, 210, 420, 467, 468, 479 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, is hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******