The Bombay High Court recently set aside a magistrate’s order issuing notice to HDFC Bank Managing Director and CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan, in a complaint filed by Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. Justice Shriram Modak held that the magistrate acted without following the procedure laid down in law.

Facts:

The complaint alleged that Jagdishan had accepted a bribe of ₹2.05 crore from a former trustee of the hospital, Chetan Metha, for giving him financial advice and helping him to retain control over the Trust's governance. Further, Jagdishan was also accused of misusing his position as head of HDFC bank and interfering in the internal affairs of the hospital.

At the outset, the counsel appearing for the Trust, argued that Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 required a notice to be issued prior to verification. He contended that the accused had to be given a hearing before the Magistrate could proceed further.

The Court, however, rejected this reading of the provision. Justice Modak noted that while the Magistrate at Girgaon had issued a notice to the Jagdishan, the law mandates verification of the complainant and witnesses before any notice can be issued to the accused, which was not done in this case. Referring to precedents from other High Courts, the Court emphasized that the sequence is crucial, verification must precede the issuance of notice.

The order stated:

“So if we consider the chronology, it shows that after filing of complaint there has to be verification of the Complainant and witnesses and when prior to decision on taking cognizance is 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.”

The High Court held that the magistrate had “committed an error” in issuing notice without first recording the verification. The order was therefore quashed.

At the same time, the Court clarified that it was not quashing the complaint itself. It left it open to the magistrate to proceed afresh in accordance with law, by first recording the necessary verification and then granting an opportunity of hearing to the accused.

“The proposed accused would still get a chance to challenge any order passed by the Magistrate after the verification is recorded before appropriate forum. Furthermore they will be given a right of audience before the Magistrate after verification is recorded. This is sufficient protection of the rights to the proposed accused” The court observed.

Case Details: Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra., Criminal Writ Petition No. 4153 of 2025

Advocates for Petitioners: Mr. Ravi Kadam, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Sudeep Passbola, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Sandeep Singhi a/w. Mr. ChandanSingh Shekhawat a/w. Sanskruti Harode a/w. Rohin Chauhan i/b. Parinam Law Associates

Advocates for Respondents: Mr. Aabad Ponda, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Monish Bhatia, Hemant Ingle, Minal Chandnani, Jyoti Ghag, Ankit Singhal i/b. Dua Associate