MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has quashed a magistrate court order issuing a notice to HDFC Bank chief executive Sashidhar Jagdishan in a criminal defamation case filed by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust that manages the Lilavati Hospital in the city.
The HC has, though, given the lower court liberty to reexamine the matter after hearing the petitioner/proposed accused.
The New Indian Express had earlier on August 19 reported erroneously that the High Court had quashed an order of the lower court to file an FIR against Jagdishan after an alleged Rs 2.05 crore bribery complaint by one Chetan Mehta, an ex-trustee of the Lilavati Trust, late in May. The case is yet to be heard, as four judges had recused themselves since June from hearing the matter.
Setting aside the Girgaon First Class Magistrate Court (JMFC) notice to Jagdishan, Justice Shriram M Modak of the High Court had on August 5 held that the JMFC had issued a notice to Jagdishan in contravention of the procedures laid down under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court uploaded the order only on August 18.
The Trust had on June 16 filed a criminal defamation complaint against Jagdishan before the JMFC under the Sections 356 (1) (defamation) and 357 (breach of contract) provisions, and sought Rs 1000 crore in damages for alleged defamatory statements that the bank and Jagdishan had indulged in.
Advocate Monissh Bhatia of the Bombay High Court, whose law firm represents the trust, told The New Indian Express that the present trustees, who assumed charge in December 2023, had discovered large-scale embezzlement of trust funds, estimated at around Rs 2,000 crore. He claimed that following this they had initiated several criminal proceedings, including the filing of five FIRs against former trustees including Chetan Mehta and Jagdishan.
Following the FIRs, the bank and its senior officials, Advocate Bhatia accused, had circulated defamatory articles against the trust and its permanent trustee Prashant Mehta, forcing the trust to initiate a civil suit seeking Rs 1,000 crore in damages before the High Court.
They had also filed a criminal defamation complaint before the First Class Judicial Magistrate in Girgaon in 2025. The magistrate on the same day issued a notice to the bank, Jagdishan and others.
The trust, in its criminal complaint had alleged that the bank and Jagdishan had made "malicious and derogatory" statements against the trust and the permanent trustee Prashant Mehta.
Following this Jagdishan approached the High Court seeking to quash the FCJM's notice and the defamation case, but the court only quashed the notice on technical grounds and the defamation case is pending.
Senior advocates Ravi Kadam and Sudeep Pasbola represented Jagdishan and argued that the magistrate had issued the notice on the same day the complaint was filed and the order to issue the notice was passed without recording the complainant's sworn verification as was mandated under the law.
On the other hand, senior advocate Aabad Ponda representing the trust argued that the magistrate was entitled to issue a notice before taking cognisance of the case. Ponda further argued that Section 223 of BNSS provides that the court has to hear the accused before taking cognisance of the complaint, which the court rejected.
Justice Modak emphasised that verification of the complainant and the witnesses after the filing of a private complaint was necessary and the proposed accused was required to be heard.
"If we consider the chronology, it shows that after filing of complaint, there has to be verification of the complainant and witnesses and prior to the decision on taking cognizance being taken, the accused needs to be heard. Hearing the accused cannot be interpreted prior to recording the verification and the statement of witnesses if any," Justice Modak said.
"There is a purpose of recording the verification. It gives an opportunity to the magistrate to ascertain whether to proceed further or not," the judge added and quashed and set aside the order of issuance of notice to proposed accused Jagdishan.
However, Justice Modak clarified that the magistrate was at liberty to proceed in the matter by recording the verification of the complainant and all witnesses if any and then pass the appropriate order.
The trust’s defamation suit seeking damages of Rs 1,000 crore from HDFC Bank and Jagdishan, is pending before the High Court.