1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 seek to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No. 116/2017 of Central Crime Station PS, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

2. The brief allegations of the complaint are that the defacto complainant along with his friend i.e. Dr. Altaf Naseem and A.1 entered into a partnership deed on 14.05.2012 to establish Childrens clinic under the name Candy Children Hospital and subsequently, they entered into another Partnership Deed on 10.08.2015 to establish pharmacy styled as Candy Medical & General Stores. A.1 used to handle day-to-day collections/payments and other administrative expenses etc. but during the year 2016-17, it was noticed that there were lot of discrepancies in the maintenance of accounts since the year 2014. Initially the amounts were regularly deposited in bank but the said system was given a go-bye by A.1 for the reasons not known to other partners. The approximate amount which was not deposited by A.1 was worked out to Rs. 68 lakhs, which was the income of the Hospital supposed to be accrued as profit. A.1 never called for any meeting with partners to discuss affairs of the Hospital nor did he conduct any audit of accounts since 2014 onwards through the expert auditors and thus failed to adhere to terms of partnership. Whenever A.1 was requested for conducting meeting with partners, he misbehaved and gave evasive replies. A.1 removed the staff, who were appointed with consensus of all partners at the time of establishment of Hospital and recruited the staff of his own choice. It is further alleged that when the accounts of the Hospital were audited, it was noticed that there were huge discrepancies worth above Rs. 1 Crore, which included the income of Hospital, Pharmacy, lab services and equipments etc. but A.1 handed over a cash of Rs. 60,000/- and A.2, who is the wife of A.1 and incharge of Pharmacy, handed over Rs. 50,000/-. The Balance Sheet prepared by the auditor showed that the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 embezzled a sum of over Rs. 1 Crore causing huge loss to the hospital. The petitioners have acted high-handedly and approached the bankers to stop operation of accounts of the Hospital, which was in violation of partnership deed. Thus the petitioners were involved in mismanagement, breach of trust, cheating, coercing besides embezzlement of income to a tune of above Rs. 1 crore. Hence the complaint.

3. Heard arguments of Sri M.S. Srinivasa Iyengar, learned counsel for petitioners; Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for 2nd respondent and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State (Telangana).

4. Severely castigating the complaint allegations as false and motivated due to the bickerings among the partners, learned counsel for petitioners would argue that even if the FIR allegations are taken to be true on their face value, still no offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, can be attributed against the petitioners. In expatiation, he would argue that admittedly the petitioners, who are the husband and wife are themselves partners in the two partnerships relating to the Candy Children Hospital and Candy Medical & General Stores. Therefore, the question of partners themselves committing criminal breach of trust in respect of the partnership properties in which they too have a share does not arise and thereby the criminal prosecution under Section 406 IPC is not attracted. Taking the Court through Sections 405 and 406 IPC, learned counsel sought to argue that unless the partnership properties and monies are specially and specifically entrusted to a partner for management and he failed in his duty and dishonestly misappropriated the same for his benefit, the charge under Section 406 IPC cannot be attributed against a partner. In the instant case, there is no such special entrustment to the petitioners in respect of the partnership assets and amounts so as to impute the petitioners o