Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 786

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M. S. KARNIK, N. R. BORKAR, JJ.
Sashidhar Jagdishan Son of Mr. Jagdishan Chandrasekharan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No.3205 of 2025 Interim Application No.3378 Of 2025 In Criminal Writ Petition No.3205 of 2025 With Criminal Writ Petition No.3215, 3216, 3217 of 2025
Decided On : 05-05-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. D.P. Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Singhi, Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Ms. Chitra Rentala, Mr. Gopal Krishna Shenoy, Ms. Kriti Srivastava, Mr. Ritesh Desai, Mr. Parikshith K, Ms. Shravani Maddirala, Mr. Utkarsh Mishra, i/b Trilegal, Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Ms. Chitra Rentala, Ms. Kriti Srivastava, Mr.Parikshith K., Ms. Shravani Maddirala and Mr. Utkarsh Mishra, i/b Trilegal, Mr. Charles De Souza a/w Ms. Manaswi Agrawal, Mr. Shantanu Ray, Ms. Pragati Gothi and Ms. Salomi Kalwade i/b Meraki Chambers, Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Tarun Mehra, Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Mr. Monish Bhatia, Ms. Minal Chandnani, Mr. Harsh Pandya Mr. Shivam Bhushan, H. N. Thakore, Ms. Jyoti Ghag, Mr. Shailesh Prajapati, and Mr. Ankit Singhal i/b M/s. Dua Associates, Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Rizwan Merchant, Adv. Monish Bhatia Ms. Minal Chandnani, H.N. Thakore, Ms. Jyoti Ghag, Mr. Shailesh Prajapati, Mr. Ankit Singhal i/by M/s. Dua Associates
For the Respondent:Mr. Karan Kadam a/w Mr. Nikhil Rajani, Mr. Ajay Deshmane i/b V. Deshpande, Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Ms. Shivani Bhushan, Mr. Harsh Panday Mr. Monish Bhatia Ms. Minal Chandnani, Ms. Pooja Kothari, Ms. Urvi Gupte, Ms. Etika Srivastava, Ms. Tanvi Mate, Ms. Nishi Doshi and Ms. Raghav, Dharmadhikari i/b M/s. Rashmikant, Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate, Mr. Monish Bhatia Ms. Minal Chandnani, Barkha Motwani and Mr. Rajesh Ranglani i/b MRB Legal

FIRs quashed against financial institution officials as malafide counterblast to recovery proceedings lacking offence ingredients, despite nascent stage, to prevent abuse of process per Bhajan Lal principles.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 175(3) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Quashing of FIR - Complaint alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating by financial institution officials and asset reconstruction company officials in collusion with former trustees, based on photocopy of cash diary showing payments from trust funds during loan recovery proceedings - Held, allegations do not disclose entrustment or dishonest inducement essential for offences; complaint is counterblast to civil recovery proceedings attaining finality, manifestly malafide with ulterior motive linked to personal grudge over recovery pressures allegedly causing family death; gross abuse of process warranting quashing even at nascent investigation stage per Bhajan Lal categories. (Paras 33-77)

(B) Quashing of FIR - Scope of inherent powers - To be exercised sparingly but not stifled by nascent stage rule where facts show civil dispute criminalized, prior complaints rejected, multiplicity of proceedings; no mechanical FIR registration under Section 175(3) ignoring binding prior judicial orders. (Paras 34-40, 69-70)

Facts of the case:
Financial institution pursued recovery of dues exceeding Rs.65 crores from borrower's company guaranteed by family, before tribunal issuing recovery certificates and coercive orders upheld by High Court. Post family patriarch's death, heirs/trust filed multiple meritless complaints against officials alleging harassment and financial misconduct via photocopy cash diary entries. Magistrate directed FIR registration despite police report citing pending identical FIRs.

Findings of Court:
Impugned Magistrate order and consequent FIRs quashed against financial institution officials and asset reconstruction company officials as abuse of process; petitions for investigation transfer to central agency dismissed as premature.

Issues: Whether allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 IPC justifying FIR; whether complaint attended with malafides as counter to recovery, warranting quashing.

Ratio Decidendi: FIR quashed where civil recovery dispute recast as criminal without offence ingredients, driven by vendetta from recovery pressures; courts intervene to prevent process abuse despite early investigation if manifestly improbable/malafide per enumerated categories, prioritizing ends of justice over mechanical probe. Result : Writ petitions allowed; FIRs quashed against petitioners.

Table of Content
1. linked writ petitions disposed by common judgment (Para 1 , 2)
2. fir alleges trust fund misuse in recovery dispute (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. parties argue fir quashing for process abuse (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
4. inherent powers prevent fir abuse per bhajan lal (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
5. recovery proceedings finalized against defaulters (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
6. photocopy diary insufficient for criminal investigation (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
7. complaint counterblast to recovery lacks bonafides (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76)
8. firs quashed; cbi transfer petitions dismissed (Para 77 , 78 , 79)

JUDGMENT :

(PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :

1. Since common issues are involved in respect of the same FIR and by and large similar allegations are levelled against the petitioners, all these writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Writ Petition Nos.3205 of 2025, 3215 of 2025, 3216 of 2025, 3217 of 2025 were reserved for judgment on 08/10/2025. Since according to learned counsel, the decision in the present set of writ petitions would have a bearing on Criminal Writ Petition Nos.3227 of 2025 and 3313 of 2025, a request was made for hearing Criminal Writ Petition Nos.3227 of 2025 and 3313 of 2025 for transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”, for short) as well along with this group. Accordingly, we have heard Criminal Writ Petition Nos.3227 of 2025 and 3313 of 2025 and closed the same for orders on 29/01/2026.

3. The petitioner-Sashidhar Jagdishan by this writ petition (Writ Petition No.3205 of 2025) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeks quashing of (i) FIR No.0818 of 2025 registered at Bandra Police Station under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”, for short), and (ii) the order dated 29/05/2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 12^th Court, Bandra in S.W. No.63 of 2025 directing registration of the said FIR. The petitioner is the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of HDFC Bank Limited. There is another FIR bearing No.0819 of 2025 levelling similar allegations against the accused, of which quashment is sought.

4. The long and short of the petitioner’s case is that the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent No.3-complainant constitute a gross abuse of process of law and have been initiated with malafide intent to harass him and tarnish the reputation of HDFC Bank. Mr. Amit Desai, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the FIR is a fallout of long-standing recovery and enforcement proceedings initiated by HDFC Bank against the complainant’s family for default in repayment of substantial dues exceeding Rs.65 crores.

5. The allegation in the complaint made by the respondent No.3-Mr. Prashant Mehta (“complainant” for short) is that in 2006, Mr. Chetan Mehta (original accused No.1) and others fraudulently and illegally gained control over the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (“the Trust”, for short) and in collusion with other accused and with corrupt motive, used the Trust’s funds for their own gains and for personal litigation.

6. Pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18/08/2023 and the consequent order dated 14/12/2023 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, new trustees, the complainant being one of them, were appointed thereby removing the accused No.1 and other trustees from the Trust. After gaining control over the Trust, the complainant discovered that records pertaining to financial misconduct

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Bom) 786

FIRs quashed against financial institution officials as malafide counterblast to recovery proceedings lacking offence ingredients, despite nascent stage, to prevent abuse of process per Bhajan Lal principles.

Cases Referred (14)