4 min readMumbaiUpdated: May 6, 2026 11:14 AM IST
In major relief to HDFC Bank Managing Director and CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday quashed and set aside the Rs 2-crore bribery FIR registered against him based on a complaint filed by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which manages Lilavati Hospital in Bandra (West). The court described it as a “non-bona fide complaint”.
The trust, through its authorised representative and trustee Prashant Kishor Mehta, alleged that Jagdishan accepted a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore to assist a group comprising Chetan Mehta and other former trustees in maintaining alleged illegal control over the trust.
The trust also sought that the investigation into Jagdishan be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. However, the court held there was “nothing to justify the transfer at such a premature stage” and that there was nothing to show the “Economic Offences Wing (EOW) lacks the capacity or does not have the necessary wherewithal to investigate the FIRs.” It also set aside proceedings arising out of the FIR.
In addition, the High Court also set aside another FIR against Keki Elavia, Venkatu Srinivasan, and Phoenix ARC Private Ltd, which is backed by the Kotak Mahindra group.The FIR alleged embezzlement of trust funds amounting to Rs 2.25 crore
A special bench of Justices Makarand S Karnik and Nitin R Borkar ruled on Jagdishan’s plea seeking the quashing of the FIRs. Earlier, three judges recused themselves from the case, citing their possession of HDFC Bank shares and prior association with the trust.
On May 29, 2025, the magistrate court in Bandra directed the Bandra police to register an FIR under Indian Penal Code sections 406, 409, and 420, related to criminal breach of trust and cheating. This was based on a complaint by Prashant Mehta. Two days later, the Bandra police registered an FIR against Jagdishan and six former trustees.
Jagdishan, throughsenior advocates Amit Desai and D P Singh, instructed by Trilegal,claimed the FIR was a “retaliatory” move, citing ongoing recovery proceedings against Splendour Gems Limited, a company owned by Prashant Mehta’s father. The company had defaulted on loans amounting to Rs 65.22 crore as of May 31 of last year.
Story continues below this ad
Jagdishan also told the high court that the magistrate’s order was “flawed” and that Prashant Mehta was misusing the “facade of Lilavati Trust” to take action against him.
Furthermore, Jagdishan said the “sole reliance on a xerox copy of selective cash records renders the allegations highly suspect”. He added that the “diary’s inherent lack of credibility,” along with the complainant’s failure to produce other convincing evidence or witnesses, “strips the allegations of merit and credibility”.
The high court observed that the complaint was the “fallout of recovery proceedings initiated by petitioners-financial institutions against the Lilavati trust” and that there is a “serious acrimony, distrust and strained relations to the core between the erstwhile trustees and present trustees.” It added that “dues to the extent of Rs 65 cores are yet to be recovered” even today.
The court also denied Prashant Mehta’s claim that pressure exerted due to recovery proceedings led to his father’s death.
Story continues below this ad
The court added that it “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 institutions were thus justified in pushing for the recovery…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,” the high court held.
Allowing the plea, the court observed it was “not a bona fide complaint” and “to allow a prosecution of such a nature to continue in the present facts not only lacks bona fides but runs the risk of deterring recovery proceedings.”
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
