N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.137 of 2015, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagarcoil.

2. The sum and substance of the complaint filed before the Court below by the respondent is that an extent of 3 cents of land in Survey No.171 of 2011, originally belonged to two persons namely, Shanmugam and Sudalaiyandi. Each was entitled for 1 cents. The said Shanmugam sold the entire three cents to one Pichaikannu Pillai, who is the father of the petitioners 2 to 8 and the husband of the first petitioner. Thereafter, the other brother Sudalaiyandi has executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent to an extent of 1 cents in the year 1986. The respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.1388 of 1986 against Pichaikannu Pillai praying for partition and separate possession of 1 cents land in survey No.171 of 2011.

3. In the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 31.08.1999, in favour of the respondent and the respondent was held to be entitled to half share in the property. As against the judgment and decree, the said Pichaikannu Pillai filed an appeal in A.S.No.96 of 1999 before the District Court, Nagercoil and during the pendency of the appeal, he died and the petitioners filed an application to implead themselves to prosecute the appeal. The appeal was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 13.08.2003. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application for passing of the final decree and the same was pending.

4. In the mean time, the petitioners 1 to 7 executed a sale deed in favour of 8th accused and the accused 9 to 11 are the attesting witnesses in the sale deed. A complaint was lodged before the police and the same was closed as civil in nature. Therefore, the present private complaint has been filed by the respondent against the petitioners for an alleged offences under Sections 420, 463, 464,468, 470 and 471 IPC and r/w. Section 120(b) IPC.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the petitioners have already filed a second appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree passed in the appeal and there was a delay in filing the appeal and the condone delay petition is pending for adjudication. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the respondent does not have any right over the property and the decree has been obtained before the Court below by playing fraud on the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the sale deed executed by the petitioners will not amount to making a false document and therefore, no offence has been made out in the private complaint.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioners have executed the sale deed for the entire 3 cents of land knowing fully well that the respondent has obtained a preliminary decree for half share in the property and the same has also been confirmed in the appeal. Therefore, the petitioners have committed the offence of cheating and forgery and they have also committed offence of criminal conspiracy. The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that there are sufficient allegations in the private complaint and there are no grounds to interfere with the same in the present criminal original petition.

7. On the averments made in the complaint, it is important to see whether the offence of forgery has been committed by making a false document. Admittedly, the sale deed has been executed by the petitioners for the entire 3 cents, after a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the respondent for half share in the property and the same was confirmed in the appeal.

8. It will be useful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:-

13. The condition precedent for an offence under s