Bombay High Court Quashes Bribery FIR Lodged By Lilavati Hospital Against HDFC CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday quashed the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust against Sashidhar Jagdishan over alleged bribery.

A division bench of Justice Makarand Karnik and Justice Nitin Borkar noted that the instant FIR was triggered out of "personal vendetta." It also noted that the HDFC Bank had initiated recovery proceedings against the Trust and thus, in a counterblast, the instant FIR was lodged against the bank's CEO.

"The complaint is a fall out of the recovery proceedings initiated against the Lilavati trust. There is serious acrimony, distrust and strained relations to the core between the erstwhile trustees and present trustees. When the new trustees took over, several recovery proceedings had already been initiated. Even today dues to the extent of Rs 65 cores are yet to be recovered," the judges noted.  

The bench noted the contention of the Trust that it is because of the pressure exerted due to these recovery proceedings that led to the unfortunate demise of the complainant Prashant Mehta's father, who was the erstwhile Trustee.

"Financial institutions are bound to initiate proceedings for recovery of the loan amounts. In fact, they would be remiss in due discharge of their duty had they failed to initiate recovery proceedings. The recovery proceedings did not lead to its dismissal. There was no castigation of the financial institutions seeking recovery. The institutions were thus justified in pushing for the recovery," the bench held.  

While the demise of the complainant's father undoubtedly is unfortunate, the judges observed, but the petitioners (HDFC Bank & Sashidhar) cannot be blamed for this.

"The complainant is holding the petitioners responsible. This impression of the complainant is personal to him but cannot be a justifiable reason to trigger a criminal prosecution on the specious plea that a photocopy of a diary is found by the complainant containing some entries of payments made to the petitioners," the bench opined.  

The bench maintained that it was interfering at a very nascent stage of investigation, which as cautioned by the Supreme Court this Court should be extremely slow with.

"But a personal vendetta writ large on the face of proceedings for recovery is something which we strongly perceive as a reason for interference. Continuance of the investigation in these facts and circumstances would be nothing but be an abuse of the process of court. Undoubtedly, when circumstances justify and the allegations made in the complaint do constitute the ingredients of the offence, it definitely calls for a detailed investigation. But the complaint at the least should appear bonafide," the bench underlined. 

The ripples of the strained relations between the family members who were and are managing the affairs of the trust are being felt by the petitioners, the judges said. 

"It is in such view of the matter, we have no hesitation even at such a nascent stage in concluding that this is not a bonafide complaint so far as the petitioners are concerned. To allow a prosecution of such a nature to continue in the present facts not only lacks bonafides but runs the risk of deterring recovery proceedings," reads the 53-page order authored by Justice Karnik.

The complainant Trust runs the famous Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai. In its FIR, the Trust has accused Jagdishan of accepting a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore from erstwhile Trustee Chetan Mehta, for giving him financial advice and helping him to retain control over the Trust's governance.

It further accused Jagdishan of interfering in its internal affairs by misusing his position as the head of the HDFC bank.

Appearance:

Senior Advocates Amit Desai, Ravi Kadam, DP Singh along with Advocates Sandeep Singhi, Himanshu Sinha, Chitra Rentala, Gopal Krishna Shenoy, Kriti Srivastava, Ritesh Desai, Parikshith K, Shravani Maddirala and Utkarsh Mishra instructed by Trilegal appeared for Sashidhar Jagadishan and others.

Advocates Charles De Souza, Manaswi Agrawal, Shantanu Ray, Pragati Gothi and Salomi Kalwade instructed by Meraki Chambers represented Intervenors.

Senior Advocates Devadatt Kamat and Aabad Ponda along with Advocates Tarun Mehra, Rizwan Merchant, Utsav Trivedi, Monish Bhatia, Minal Chandnani, Harsh Pandya, Shivam Bhushan, Shivani Bhushan, HN Thakore, Jyoti Ghag, Shailesh Prajapati, Ankit Singhal, Pooja Kothari, Urvi Gupte, Etika Srivastava, Tanvi Mate, Nishi Doshi, Raghav Dharmadhikari, Barkha Motwani and Rajesh Ranglani instructed by M/s. Rashmikant and Partners, also by M/s. Dua Associates and MRB Legal represented the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust.

Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola assisted by Advocates Lakshmi Raman, Manisha Prajapati, Mhendi Nakrani and Dhiren Shah represented some Respondents. 

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Munde along with Advocates Jai Vohra and Shantanu Nakashe represented the CBI and ACB (Mumbai).

Additional Public Prosecutors Mahalaxmi Ganpati, MS Bajoria and Pankaj Deokar represented the State.

Case Title: Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 3205 of 2025)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 236

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment