The Bombay High Court on Tuesday quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against HDFC Bank CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan, 61, based on a complaint by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. The FIR, registered in May 2025, alleged offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust after the bank initiated recovery proceedings.
Court's Observations
A division bench of Justices M S Karnik and N R Borkar held that the complaint was a fallout of and a counterblast to the recovery proceedings initiated by financial institutions. The court noted serious acrimony and strained relations between former and current trustees, with dues of Rs 65 crore still pending recovery.
The bench observed that allowing the prosecution to continue would risk deterring recovery proceedings. It stated that a personal vendetta was writ large on the face of the proceedings, justifying interference. However, the court refrained from expressing any opinion on allegations against other accused, including former trustees.
Arguments Presented
Senior counsel Amit Desai, representing Jagdishan, argued that the criminal proceedings were a gross abuse of process intended to harass the CEO and tarnish the bank's reputation. The court agreed that the complaint was not bona fide concerning the petitioners.
Opposing the quashing, senior counsels Devadatt Kamat and Aabad Ponda, along with prosecutor Mahalakshmi Ganapati, contended that the complaint disclosed serious offences warranting further investigation. They cited the Supreme Court's call for sparing use of quashing powers. However, the HC found the magistrate's order to register the FIR was mechanical.
Relief for Other Accused
The court also quashed FIRs against Phoenix Arc Pvt Ltd and its directors Venkattu Srinivasan, 64, and Keki Elavia, 79. Senior counsel Ravi Kadam and counsel Charles De Souza argued that the magistrate's order was mechanical, which the HC accepted.
Trustee's Response
Lilavati trustee Prashant Mehta, who filed the complaint, expressed intent to challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court, expressing faith that justice would be done for the trust. Mehta's case was that neither he nor the trust was party to the Debt Recovery Tribunal's recovery certificate.
The HC observed that the ripples of strained family relations managing the trust were affecting the petitioners. It concluded that the complaint was not bona fide concerning Jagdishan and the other petitioners, leading to the quashing of both FIRs against the bank CEO.
