ORDER :

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 13 of 2017, on the file of the 1st respondent.

2. The short facts of the case reads as follows:

(i) The petitioners along with the defacto complainant had jointly agreed to develop property at Selaiyur and an MOU, dated 01.09.2006 was entered. Subsequently, two other agreements were executed and finally, a revised allocation agreement, dated 24.10.2008 was entered between the parties and it was mutually agreed that Multi Storey Building will be put up as per Master Plan II and thereby, both parties shall realize more saleable area.

(ii) In the complaint it is alleged that even though approval for construction is a single unit, the petitioners executed sale deeds to 3rd parties, without obtaining signature of the defacto complainant. Therefore, the defacto complainant was constrained to file an Original Suit in O.S. No. 171 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Tambaram, for an injunction, against the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant lodged a complaint, dated 20.02.2015 before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai an after enquiry, the same was closed on 22.02.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant filed a petition in Crl. O.P. No. 16641 of 2015 before this Court, and this Court, vide order dated 17.08.2015, directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, City Crime Branch, Greater Chennai, Chennai, to reopen the enquiry and the 2nd respondent was directed to produce the necessary proof with regard to the alleged signature to the respondent Police.

4. The learned counsel continuing further would submit that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB reopened the case and conducted further enquiry, pursuant to the direction of this Court. After thorough enquiry, the case was closed as civil in nature. After closure, the 1st respondent Police, now registered the FIR in Crime No. 13 of 2017, against the petitioners for the very same complaint dated 20.02.2015, for the offence under Sections 410, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, the registration of FIR is illegal and not maintainable, more particularly, when it has been closed by a Higher Authority.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the FIR has been registered with an ulterior motive, tainted with mala-fide with an intention to coerce and cause undue duress to the petitioners herein by giving a criminal colour to a civil and commercial transaction between the parties. The learned counsel, in support of his contentions, has relied on the Judgment of this Court in D. Ramesh and Others vs. V. Vijayakumar and Others, 2018 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 220 and Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy vs. Sudha Seetharam, 2019 (16) SCC 739.

6. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant submitted that the allegations made in the complaint would clearly make out a cognizable offence as against the petitioners. The petitioners by forging the signature, cheated the defacto complainant. Therefore, there is a case for investigation and this is not a fit case to quash the complaint.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State vehemently argued and submitted that at this premature stage, it cannot be held that a case has been made out or not as against the petitioners herein. At this premature stage, this Court cannot verify and hold a mini trial so as to come to the conclusion that a case has been made out or not. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. The admitted fact is that there was a Memorandum of Understanding entered between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant, on 01.09.2006 and as per the said MOU, the 2nd respon