Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M. S. KARNIK, N. R. BORKAR, JJ.
Sashidhar Jagdishan - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra Through Public Prosecutor, Bombay High Court - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No.3205 of 2025 With Interim Application No.3378 of 2025 Criminal Writ Petition No.3215, 3216, 3217 of 2025 With Criminal Writ Petition No.3227 of 2025 With Interim Application (St) No.21717 of 2025 In Criminal Writ Petition No.3227 of 2025
Decided On : 05-05-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :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
For the Respondent:Mr. Karan Kadam a/w Mr. Nikhil Rajani, Mr. Ajay Deshmane i/b V. Deshpande and Co., 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

High Court quashed FIRs against financial institution officials as mala fide counterblast to lawful recovery proceedings, lacking prima facie offence ingredients despite photocopy evidence, exercising inherent powers at nascent stage to curb abuse of process.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 175(3) - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 406, 409, 420 r/w 34 - Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227 - Inherent powers [Section 528 BNSS equiv to 482 CrPC] - Quashing of FIR and Magistrate's order directing registration - Complaint alleging dishonest misappropriation of trust funds via cash payments to financial institution officials, evidenced by photocopy of cash diary, amid loan recovery dispute - Prior recovery orders final, multiple complaints rejected as meritless - Held, allegations civil in nature, no entrustment or inducement, proceedings manifestly mala fide counterblast to recovery efforts - FIR quashed against financial institution officials as gross abuse of process despite nascent investigation; no view on former trustees. (Paras 1, 33-39, 58-70, 74-77)

(B) Criminal proceedings - Quashing - Categories under settled law - Where allegations absurd, improbable, attended with mala fides or ulterior motive to wreak vengeance due to private grudge, inherent powers exercisable even at early stage to secure ends of justice - No absolute bar on interference during nascent investigation if facts disclose abuse. (Paras 36-39, 74)

Facts of the case:
Financial institutions pursued recovery of substantial dues from defaulting borrower linked to trust, obtaining final orders including recovery certificates and arrest warrants. After change in trust management and demise of borrower guarantor, new trustees filed complaints alleging collusion and cash payments to officials causing harassment and death, relying on photocopy diary. Despite prior rejections, Magistrate directed FIR registration under Section 175(3) BNSS.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order and FIRs quashed against petitioners as abuse of process; petitions for CBI investigation transfer dismissed for prematurity.

Issues: Whether Magistrate's direction for FIR registration valid despite prior judicial rejections and civil recovery finality; if allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences or constitute mala fide counterblast justifying quashing.

Ratio Decidendi: Complaint rooted in acrimonious recovery dispute lacks bona fides, photocopy diary insufficient for investigation into alleged offences absent entrustment; High Court to intervene under inherent powers where proceedings maliciously instituted to harass amid lawful recovery, preventing process abuse even pre-investigation.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; FIRs and orders quashed against petitioners.

Table of Content
1. fir quashing sought over trust fund misuse allegations (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. arguments on fir validity and abuse of process (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
3. inherent powers prevent fir abuse under section 482 (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
4. loan recovery history shows repeated failed challenges (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
5. allegations civil; prior orders bar multiplicity (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)
6. complaint counterblast lacking offence ingredients (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
7. quash firs to avert recovery process abuse (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76)
8. petition firs quashed; cbi transfer 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 misconduc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Bom) 828

High Court quashed FIRs against financial institution officials as mala fide counterblast to lawful recovery proceedings, lacking prima facie offence ingredients despite photocopy evidence, exercising inherent powers at nascent stage to curb abuse of process.

Cases Referred (14)