Meenakshi Shukla
On 4th July, 2025, the Supreme Court of India declined to entertain the plea filed by HDFC Bank CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan seeking to quash an FIR registered against him in the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust controversy. The FIR, lodged at Bandra Police Station, accuses Jagdishan of serious offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, banker, merchant or agent), and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code.
A Bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan observed that since the matter is already pending before the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court would refrain from interfering at this stage. “The case is listed before the High Court. It will be improper for us to hear it,” the Bench remarked, while expressing hope that the High Court will take up the matter on July 14, the next scheduled hearing date.
The FIR was lodged based on a complaint filed by the Lilavati Trust, which alleged that Jagdishan had accepted a bribe of ₹2.05 crore to help the Chetan Mehta Group unlawfully retain control over the governance of the Trust. The complaint further alleges that he misused his position at HDFC Bank to interfere in internal Trust affairs and benefited from free medical services provided to him and his family at Lilavati Hospital, which were not disclosed to the Bank.
The Trust pointed to over ₹48 crore in deposits and investments made with HDFC Bank since 2022, raising concerns about a conflict of interest. It also accused Jagdishan of orchestrating a ₹1.5 crore payment under the guise of CSR funding to allegedly destroy evidence related to a long-standing internal dispute within the Trust.
Appearing for Jagdishan, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi contended that the FIR was frivolous, malicious, and aimed solely at tarnishing the reputation of the CEO. Rohatgi submitted.
“This is a personal dispute. My client is being harassed by being summoned to the police station,”
However, the Supreme Court refused to intervene and directed the petitioner to argue all issues before the Bombay High Court.
Jagdishan had initially approached the Bombay High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of the FIR. However, the matter has faced delays, with three judges recusing themselves for undisclosed reasons. His legal team also sought interim protection on June 30, but the High Court declined the request, noting the absence of urgency and posted the matter for July 14.
Previously, the matter had been listed on June 18, 20, 25, and 26, but judicial recusals resulted in repeated adjournments.
Bench: Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com