ORDER : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred against the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Tibbi, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 58/2016 arising out of FIR No. 4/2012, Police Station, Talwara, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 167 read with Section 120-B IPC, whereby the cognizance has been taken on the charge-sheet No. 101 dated 30.12.2015, Police Station, Tibbi against the petitioner under Section 420, 468, 471, 167 read with Section 120-B IPC; the cognizance has been taken on the compliant of Mahendra Singh in relation to proceeding of SDM Court, Tibbi and no complaint is filed by the Court are by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorized in writing in this behalf under Section 195 Cr.P.C and without following the procedure under Section 340 Cr.P.C and to set aside the same. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one Revenue Suit No. 161/2010 was filed before the Assistant Collector cum Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tibbi and an ex-parte decree was passed against the complainant-Parwati Devi, Shanti Devi and Surendra Singh on 03.08.2010 3. The allegation in the FIR was that with conspiracy of an employee of the SDM Court, the forged signature of Surendra Singh was taken and the fake service on Parwati Devi and Shanti Devi was effected, and thus, the ex-parte decree was passed in the Revenue Suit No. 161/2010 on 03.08.2010 Respondent No. 2.Mahendra Singh filed an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh on 25.05.2012 and a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 11.09.2012, on the basis of which, the appeal was allowed and the decree dated 03.08.2010 was set aside by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh vide its order dated 19.09.2012, and the revenue entry was restored to the pre-decree position, and the appellate order passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority had attained finality. The decree was set aside on account of the compromise and none of the parties could step back from the same. 4. The decree was set aside on account of the compromise and none of the parties could step back from the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that Mahendra Singh filed a complaint before the learned Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Tibbi on 06.08.2012 and the same was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation, upon which the FIR was registered and after investigation, challan was filed against the present petitioners and two others, namely Ganesha Ram and Balveer Singh. Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Talwara Jheel on 27.01.2016 took cognizance against the petitioners, which is barred under Section 195 Cr.P.C, because the FIR is in relation to the court proceeding of Assistant Collector cum SDO, Tibbi. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also stated that after compromise, the appellate order was passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, which order had attained finality, as the same has not been challenged. Moreover, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority has passed the said order in the presence of the complainant party. Thus, after passing of the said order, continuance of the criminal proceeding would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent however, stated that after due investigation, challan has been filed, and therefore, no interference can be made in the cognizance order at this stage. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the property in dispute is the same, which was sub-judice before the civil court. The appeal was filed by the complainant party against the original decree dated 03.08.2010 passed in Revenue Suit No. 161/2010. 8. Since Mahendra Singh/respondent No. 2 himself had filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authortiy on 25.05.2012 and the appeal was allowed on 19.09.2012 on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties on 11.09.2012 and the same was thereafter never challenged by either of the parties, therefore, the present dispute regarding the revenue entry in respect of the land in question stood settled, by virtue of the aforesaid order dated 19.09.2012 9. It is the settled proposition of law that any decree of compromise, even if appellate decree, after attaining finality, is the last word of law and cannot be reopened in the garb of a criminal complaint or criminal proceedings. 10. On the face of it, the cognizance order is bad, as the respondent could not answer or satisfy this Court as to how they wanted the criminal court to overcome the appellate order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 19.09.2012, whereby the earlier decree dated 03.08.2010 was set aside. 11. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that once the dispute was before the civil/revenue court and the revenue court, after due application of mind, on account of the compromise arrived at between the parties, particularly respondent No. 2 and the complainant in this case, passed the appellate order on 19.09.2012, the dispute stood settled in the eye of law and the same cannot be unsettled by a criminal proceeding on any count. 12. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present misc. petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Tibbi, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 58/2016 is quashed and set aside.