Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday quashed a first information report (FIR) against HDFC Bank managing director and chief executive Sashidhar Jagdishan. The FIR was based on a complaint by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which operates Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai's Bandra suburb.
Also Read: HDFC Life approves Vibha Padalkar's re-appointment as CEO & Managing Director
The division bench of Justices MS Karnik and NR Borkar granted Jagdishan's request to quash the FIR and set aside the magistrate court's order of May 29, 2025, directing a police investigation. "In our view, the complaint (FIR) is nothing but a counterblast to the recovery proceedings initiated, and the materials on record do not at all justify an investigation into the claim made by the complainant," the court observed in its 53-page order.
"We find that the impugned (lower court's) order amounts to a gross abuse of the criminal process, being founded on purely civil background and recovery proceedings that have already attained finality through orders of the DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal) and this court," said the court in its order.
Before the court's order, Senior Advocate Amit Desai and Sandeep Singhi of Singhi & Co. appeared for Jagdishan and argued that the FIR is a fallout of long-standing recovery and enforcement proceedings initiated by HDFC Bank against the complainant's family for default in repayment of substantial dues of over ₹65 crore.
The police complaint was lodged by the trust through one of its representatives, Prashant Mehta.
The trust alleged that a diary found during loan recovery proceedings involving a company linked to one of its trustees showed payments totalling ₹2.05 crore to Jagdishan, allegedly on the instructions of Chetan Mehta.
The allegation in the complaint made by Prashant Mehta is that in 2006, Chetan Mehta and others fraudulently and illegally gained control of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and, in collusion with other accused and with corrupt motives, used the Trust's funds for their own gain and for personal litigation.
The high court, in its order, observed that the complaint (FIR) is a fallout of the recovery proceedings initiated by the petitioners' financial institutions (HDFC Bank) against the Lilavati trust.
Assembly Elections 2026
Election Results 2026 Live Updates: Who's ahead in which state
West Bengal Election Results 2026 Live Updates
TN Election Result 2026 Live Updates
The division bench of Justices MS Karnik and NR Borkar granted Jagdishan's request to quash the FIR and set aside the magistrate court's order of May 29, 2025, directing a police investigation. "In our view, the complaint (FIR) is nothing but a counterblast to the recovery proceedings initiated, and the materials on record do not at all justify an investigation into the claim made by the complainant," the court observed in its 53-page order.
"We find that the impugned (lower court's) order amounts to a gross abuse of the criminal process, being founded on purely civil background and recovery proceedings that have already attained finality through orders of the DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal) and this court," said the court in its order.
Before the court's order, Senior Advocate Amit Desai and Sandeep Singhi of Singhi & Co. appeared for Jagdishan and argued that the FIR is a fallout of long-standing recovery and enforcement proceedings initiated by HDFC Bank against the complainant's family for default in repayment of substantial dues of over ₹65 crore.
The police complaint was lodged by the trust through one of its representatives, Prashant Mehta.
The trust alleged that a diary found during loan recovery proceedings involving a company linked to one of its trustees showed payments totalling ₹2.05 crore to Jagdishan, allegedly on the instructions of Chetan Mehta.
The allegation in the complaint made by Prashant Mehta is that in 2006, Chetan Mehta and others fraudulently and illegally gained control of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and, in collusion with other accused and with corrupt motives, used the Trust's funds for their own gain and for personal litigation.
The high court, in its order, observed that the complaint (FIR) is a fallout of the recovery proceedings initiated by the petitioners' financial institutions (HDFC Bank) against the Lilavati trust.
