Bombay High Court quashes magistrate’s notice to HDFC MD Sashidhar Jagdishan in defamation case

The Bombay High Court recently quashed a notice issued to HDFC Bank Managing Director and CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan by a Mumbai magistrate in a criminal defamation case filed by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust [Sashidhar Jagdishan v State of Maharashtra].

The Court held that the notice was issued prematurely and in violation of mandatory procedure under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The criminal defamation complaint was filed on June 16, 2025, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Girgaon, by the Lilavati Trust through Prashant Mehta, its permanent trustee.

It accused Jagdishan and others of offences under Sections 356(1) (defamation) 356(2), 356(3), and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The trust alleged that the HDFC Bank as well as Jagdishan had deliberately maligned the trust through its press releases. A civil defamation suit is also pending before the Bombay High Court in the matter.

Jagdishan moved the High Court challenging trial court's decision to issue him notice in the criminal defamation complaint. He contended that the magistrate had issued the notice the very same day it was filed and without verifying it as required by law.

The High Court found that the order issuing notice was passed without first recording the complainant’s sworn verification, a step that is required by law before a magistrate can proceed with a criminal complaint.

Justice SM Modak, while ruling in favour of Jagdishan, held that the notice was issued at the wrong stage and could not be sustained.

“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 said in its August 5 ruling.

The Lilavati trust's counsel had argued that the magistrate had not yet taken cognizance of the case and was, therefore, entitled to issue notice beforehand.

He argued that under a proviso to Section 223, BNSS, no cognizance can be taken without hearing the accused first.

However, the Court rejected this argument and clarified that the main provision and the proviso to Section 223 must be read together.

“Ultimately this proviso is nothing but an exception to what is stated in opening part of Section 223. It is the one of the principle of interpretation that ‘the main provision and the proviso’ has to be read together," it said.

The Court also dismissed a contention that Jagdishan, having already appeared before the magistrate and sought audience, was estopped from challenging the notice thereafter.

"There cannot be estoppel against the party if they insist on adherence to provisions of law," the Court said.

Ultimately, ruling in Jagdishan’s favour, the Court held,

“The order of issuance of notice to proposed accused dated 16th June 2025 is quashed and set aside.”

It, however, allowed the magistrate to begin the process afresh after recording the verification of the complaint and all witnesses.

Senior Advocates Ravi Kadam and Sudeep Passbola along with Advocates Sandeep Singhi, ChandanSingh Shekhawat, Sanskruti Harode and Rohin Chauhan instructed by Parinam Law Associates appeared for the Jagdishan.

Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda along with Advocates Monish Bhatia, Hemant Ingle, Minal Chandnani, Jyoti Ghag and Ankit Singhal instructed by Dua Associates appeared for the Lilavati trust.

Additional Public Prosecutor NB Patil appeared for the State.

[Read Order]