According to the police, the complainant and 11 others, including the two accused, formed a partnership in 2010 to develop a multi-storey commercial complex. Two persons were appointed as working partners and the complex was rented to a govt office. The tenant paid nearly Rs 20 lakh per month to rent the property.
However, one of the working partners subsequently died. According to the agreement, the death of any working partner invariably requires a new person to be appointed to take over their role.
However, the complainant alleged that the second working partner, in collusion with the other accused, forged documents and diverted Rs 6 crore from a jointly owned account to another account, allegedly in violation of the agreement.
Police have registered a case under sections 318 (cheating), 336 (forgery) and 338 (forgery of valuable security) of the BNS. The complainant submitted the death certificate, partnership agreement and bank statements to the police.
Stay updated with the latest news on Times of India. Get all the trending City News, India News, Business News, and Sports News. For Entertainment News, TV News, and Lifestyle Tips, visit Etimes.### Hyderabad Police Register Case Against Two Partners for Allegedly Siphoning ₹6 Crore from Commercial Firm
On December 5, 2025, the Central Crime Station (CCS) in Hyderabad filed a criminal case against two partners of a commercial complex development firm in the upscale Gunfoundry area, accusing them of forgery, misappropriation of funds, and criminal breach of trust. The complaint, lodged by a third partner, alleges the duo diverted ₹6 crore from the firm's joint bank account through forged documents, breaching the partnership agreement. This incident highlights vulnerabilities in partnership disputes within real estate ventures, where rental income from government leases can become contentious.
#### The Firm and Its Operations
The unnamed firm was established in 2010 by the complainant, 11 other partners, and two designated working partners. Their primary project was developing a multi-storey commercial complex in Gunfoundry, which was subsequently leased to a government office. The property generates approximately ₹20 lakh in monthly rental income, making it a lucrative asset. The partnership agreement outlined clear roles, including provisions for succession in case of a partner's death.
#### Modus Operandi
The fraud allegedly unfolded after one of the working partners passed away, triggering a clause in the agreement that required appointing a replacement to maintain operational continuity. Instead of adhering to this:
- The surviving second working partner colluded with another accused (likely the second named partner).
- They forged documents to bypass the replacement requirement.
- Funds totaling ₹6 crore were illicitly transferred from the firm's jointly held bank account to a separate account controlled by the accused, in direct violation of the agreement's terms on fund management and transparency.
This diversion exploited the firm's steady revenue stream, potentially depriving other partners of their rightful shares.
#### The Complaint and Evidence
The complainant, a co-partner in the firm, approached the CCS with a detailed FIR, citing the partnership deed, the deceased partner's death certificate, and bank statements as irrefutable proof of the transactions. The allegations point to deliberate misrepresentation to siphon funds for personal gain, eroding trust among the 14 original partners.
#### Police Actions and Charges
- **FIR Registration**: The case was booked under Sections 318 (cheating), 336 (forgery), and 338 (forgery of valuable security) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
- **Investigation**: CCS officers have initiated a probe, including forensic analysis of the forged documents and tracing the diverted funds. No arrests have been made yet, but sources indicate the accused have been summoned for questioning.
- **Next Steps**: Police are scrutinizing the firm's financial records from 2010 onward to uncover any prior irregularities. If proven, the accused could face up to 10 years in jail and fines under BNS provisions.
Names of the accused and complainant were not disclosed in initial reports, pending further investigation.
#### Broader Context
This case adds to a string of partnership-related frauds in Hyderabad's booming real estate sector, where opaque agreements often lead to disputes over high-value assets. Similar incidents, like a recent ₹2 crore siphoning case involving bank employees, underscore the need for digitized fund tracking and mandatory audits in joint ventures. As of now, there is limited public reaction on platforms like X, likely due to the recency of the FIR. Investors and partners in similar setups are advised to incorporate robust succession clauses and third-party audits to mitigate such risks.
