Cr.Misc. M 37060 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 37060 of 2009 Date of decision: 17.2.2010 Mehar Singh and others Petitioners vs. State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. JS Bedi, Advocate. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Pb Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioners, in the capacity as partners with the complainant, in a commission agent shop, on the basis of a partnership deed have allegedly misappropriated a sum of Rs.20 lacs by forging the entries in the bahies pertaining to the period 1999 to 2000. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record the entries, which have been forged by the petitioners for the purpose of misappropriation of the money of the partnership concern. The FIR in this case has been lodged after 9 years of the occurrence. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the partnership is still existing. Without expression of any opinion on merits of the case, it is sufficient to observe that it is a case where partners of a firm are levelling allegations against each other. The matter, prima facie is of civil nature. Till date neither any suit for rendition of account nor for recovery of money has been filed by any of the partners. In this context, reliance can be placed on Velji Raghavji Patel v. The state of Maharashtra AIR 1965 Supreme Cr.Misc. M 37060 of 2009 2 Court 1433, wherein in the matter of dispute amongst the partners, it was held that breach of trust, entrustment of dominion over property is essential but in the matter of partnership , dominion of partner over partnership asset will not constitute entrustment unless there a special agreement. In view of the above said judgment, it will be a moot point during trial whether it is a case of breach of trust or cheating. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the amount has been misappropriated. In view of the above, the petitioners can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail without any expression of any opinion on the civil rights of the parties. It is always open to the complainant to avail the legal remedy, available to him, in accordance with law for recovery of money. It is also not out of place to mention here that FIR stands registered by the petitioners against the complainant. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 28.12.2009 is hereby confirmed subject to the condition that the petitioners will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation subject to the condition that the petitioners will make available documents and account books to the investigation officer, if any, in their possession. They will not leave India without the permission of the court. February 17 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE