Bombay High Court cancels Notice by Magistrate to HDFC Bank CEO

The Bombay High Court has given relief to HDFC Bank’s Managing Director, Sashidhar Jagdishan, by cancelling a notice issued against him by a Judicial Magistrate in connection with a complaint filed by Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which runs Mumbai’s well-known Lilavati Hospital.

The Trust had accused Jagdishan of taking a bribe of ₹2.05 crore from former trustee Chetan Mehta. It also alleged that Jagdishan misused his position as HDFC Bank’s MD to interfere in its internal affairs.

On June 16, the magistrate directed issuance of notice to Mr. Jagdishan and others under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs procedures in criminal complaints.

Mr. Jagdishan had moved the High Court on July 14, contending that the magistrate had acted prematurely by issuing notice before recording the verification statement of the complainant and witnesses, which is a statutory requirement under Section 223.

Justice Shriram Modak pointed out that the Magistrate at Girgaon had wrongly issued a notice to Jagdishan even before verifying the complaint and witness statements. The judge said this step was procedurally incorrect because, under the law, a Magistrate must first examine the complainant and witnesses before deciding whether to take cognisance of the complaint.

Senior advocate Aabad Ponda, appearing for the Trust, argued that the Magistrate was right in issuing notice as per Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which allows a proposed accused the right to be heard. However, Justice Modak rejected this reasoning, stating that the legislature never intended for an accused to be heard before verification of witnesses.

Justice Modak said: “The proviso is nothing but an exception to what is stated in the opening part of Section 223. The purpose behind inserting the proviso is that there should be a check on frivolous complaints at the first stage itself.”

The court stressed that verification is important because it helps the Magistrate decide whether a case has merit and should proceed. Since the Magistrate skipped this crucial step, his order was flawed. Using powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court corrected this mistake by quashing the notice against Jagdishan.

However, the court did not dismiss the entire complaint. It clarified that once the Magistrate completes verification of the complaint and witnesses, Jagdishan will still have the right to challenge any further orders and will be given an opportunity to present his case.

“Instead of staying the impugned order, I am inclined to set it aside. The trial court may record verification of the complainant and of the witnesses, if any, and then pass the appropriate order. The order of issuance of notice to proposed accused dated 16th June 2025 is quashed and set aside,“ the court said.

Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)