SC seeks HDFC CEO’s response on Lilavati trust plea over quashed FIR by HC

THe sublime margaret court (SC) on fri issued a note on a petition filed by the Lilavati infirmary trust challenging the Bombay high court’s (HC) recent judgment quashing a criminal case against HDFC Bank managing director and chief executive officer Sashidhar Jagdishan for allegedly receiving illegal payments from the trust fund.A bench of justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order on a petition filed by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and its permanent trustee Prashant Kishore Mehta challenging HC’s May 5 judgment, and issued notice to Jagdishan seeking his response during the next hearing.The trust filed a criminal case against Jagdishan for allegedly colluding with erstwhile trustees and receiving approximately ₹2.05 crore as illegal payment between March 16, 2022 and June 21, 2023. The trust, represented by senior advocate Sidharth Luthra along with advocate Gaurav Goel stated that the HC had exceeded its jurisdiction by holding that the complaint against Jagdishan was a fallout of recovery proceedings initiated against the trust and went on to quash it.Luthra said that the high court had noted the “acrimony, distrust and strained relations” between the erstwhile and present trustees of the charitable hospital and saw it as a private dispute without appreciating the serious economic offences of alleged siphoning and diversion of funds from a prominent charitable medical trust.“The judgment has resulted in premature interdiction of an ongoing investigation at a nascent stage, despite substantial incriminating material already having been collected during the investigation,” Luthra stated, adding that independent proceedings seeking investigation into the larger financial conspiracy and diversion of trust funds are pending in other FIRs.As this was a case specifically about allegations of misappropriation of trust funds by an individual, the FIR was quashed even before the accused could be subjected to custodial interrogation and confronted with documentary material. The bench said that this part of the probe can be looked into in other FIRs even as it indicated it was not inclined to interfere with the HC ruling.Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Jagdishan said that the HC rightly observed the growing friction between the larger Mehta family and stated that the allegations in the FIR lacked any substantive material.The FIR against Jagdishan is lodged at Bandra police station under various offences involving cheating and criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code (now replaced by BNS). The trust was further aggrieved by HC’s refusal to order a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which failed to notice how repeated complaints to the police authorities and Anti-Corruption Bureau yielded no results which compelled the trust to approach the district court directed registration of FIR in May 2025.“The refusal to direct an independent investigation by the CBI despite admitted police inaction, destruction of records, allegations of corruption involving influential banking officials and forensic findings of large-scale financial irregularities has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and undermined public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of criminal investigation,” the petition said.The HC judgment stated, “The complaint is a fallout of the recovery proceedings initiated by the petitioners-financial institutions against the Lilavati trust…Even today dues to the extent of ₹65 crores are yetto be recovered.””The petitioners alleged that these recovery proceedings led to their father’s death. The HC said, “There is serious acrimony, distrust and strained relations to the core between the erstwhile trustees and present trustees.””In these circumstances, it went on to conclude, “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 an abuse of the process of court.”The top court is now expected to hear the matter in August.