HDFC Bank CEO Challenges FIR in Bombay High Court
HDFC Bank Managing Director and CEO, Sashidhar Jagdishan, has moved the Bombay High Court to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. The complaint alleges that Jagdishan received a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore to help former trustees retain control over the prominent Mumbai-based Lilavati Hospital.
The allegations stem from a controversial diary entry produced by the complainant, claiming the money was paid over time under instructions from one Chetan Mehta. Jagdishan disputes the authenticity and legality of this evidence and has called the charges an act of retaliation linked to a financial dispute with Splendour Gems Limited, a company tied to the complainants.
What Led to the FIR
The complaint was filed by Prashant Mehta, the authorised representative of the Trust. According to him, during loan recovery proceedings initiated by HDFC Bank against Splendour Gems Limited — a company connected to the Mehta family — his father, who had ties to the Trust, was allegedly harassed. This, he claims, led to his father’s physical and mental deterioration and ultimately, his death.
After stepping in as a trustee, Prashant says he discovered a diary reportedly containing records of payments directed by Chetan Mehta to Sashidhar Jagdishan, which added up to Rs 2.05 crore. These alleged transfers were cited as a way to maintain unlawful control over the Trust, which operates the well-known Lilavati Hospital in Bandra (West).
Judicial Action and Police Involvement
On May 29, Judicial Magistrate First Class Komalsing Rajput ordered the Bandra police to register a case. The FIR was then filed on May 31 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code:
- Section 406 – Criminal Breach of Trust
- Section 409 – Criminal Breach of Trust by a Public Servant
- Section 420 – Cheating
The magistrate directed a probe under section 175(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, citing that the diary warranted investigation despite the absence of solid supplementary evidence.
CEO’s Legal Stand
Represented by senior advocate Amit Desai, Jagdishan called the complaint a “malicious and baseless” move aimed at retribution. Desai told the court the entire case was a smokescreen rooted in HDFC Bank’s loan recovery actions against Splendour Gems Limited, which had defaulted loans amounting to Rs 65.22 crore by the end of May.
In his submission, Desai argued that, “The complainant is using the facade of Lilavati Trust to take action against the petitioner.” He further urged the court to quash the FIR against Jagdishan, calling the diary “selective and xeroxed excerpts” and condemning the magistrate’s directive for investigation as flawed.
Meanwhile, Jagdishan has asked for a stay on the investigation, including a halt to the filing of any chargesheet, stating that proceeding without proper evidence would cause “grave loss and irreparable injury.”
Bench Recusals Complicate Case
The matter’s sensitivity increased when two High Court judges recused themselves from hearing the plea. Justice Rajesh S Patil stepped away first, shortly followed by Justice Sarang V Kotwal, who noted prior affiliation with one of the trustees. With neither willing to preside, the case now awaits fresh bench assignment from the high court administration.
Though rare, such recusals are taken seriously, particularly in high-profile or high-stakes cases. Legal observers say they reflect a commitment to impartiality, but they can slow down proceedings and complicate access to urgent relief — such as a stay on police action.
Status of Other Related FIRs
In an intriguing twist, another FIR was registered on May 31 against Chetan Mehta, Phoenix ARC Private Ltd, and others for embezzling Rs 2.25 crore from the Trust. That case involves different aspects of the financial management of the Trust, further entangling multiple players in legal disputes.
Phoenix ARC and individuals like Keki Elavia and Venkatu Srinivasan have also approached the High Court seeking to quash their respective FIRs. These cases are expected to be addressed in upcoming hearings.
How FIR Quashing Works in Indian Law
Under Indian law, the power to quash an FIR lies with the High Court, typically exercised under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The courts evaluate whether the FIR:
- Lacks prima facie evidence
- Is filed out of malice or vendetta
- Relies solely on inadmissible or vague material
- Constitutes abuse of legal process
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that FIR quashing cannot be routine. Courts weigh the balance of justice and ensure that genuine grievances are not stifled under the guise of technicalities.
In cases like Jagdishan’s, courts often consider whether the material — like the allegedly forged diary — even qualifies as credible evidence before allowing police action to go forward. If the evidence is found lacking or motivated by ulterior interest, the FIR may be quashed to prevent harassment.
Why Recusals Matter
When a judge recuses themselves, it means they voluntarily withdraw from the case. Reasons can range from previous associations to potential bias. Experts point out that recusals uphold judicial fairness but are not without consequences.
“In prominent matters, a judge’s withdrawal can delay relief and affect public perception of neutrality,” said a former Mumbai High Court clerk familiar with financial litigation cases. “But it also reinforces the principle that justice must not only be done, but seen to be done.”
In Jagdishan’s case, multiple recusals have certainly stretched the timeline. But observers remain hopeful the High Court will reassign it soon and allow both sides to present their versions in a fair hearing.
Looking Ahead
For now, everything rests on how the High Court proceeds — not just in Jagdishan’s case, but also in the related embezzlement FIRs. HDFC Bank remains tight-lipped, maintaining that the matter is “sub-judice.” So far, no statement has been released independently by Jagdishan either.
As financial institutions and charitable trusts collide in court, larger questions loom: How should high-value internal disputes be handled? At what point does a diary become admissible truth or a convenience for blame?
This case could, in some way, prompt new thinking on how we handle corporate-criminal overlaps and civil vendettas masquerading as criminal complaints.
