Bombay HC quashes notice issued by magistrate to HDFC Bank CEO in criminal defamation complaint

The Trust had on June 16 filed a criminal defamation complaint against Jagdishan before magistrate court in Girgaon under sections 356 (1) (defamation), 357 (breach of contract) among others of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS).

The magistrate on the same day issued notice to the Bank, Jagdishan and others.

The Trust, in its criminal complaint had alleged that the Bank and Jagdishan had made “malicious and derogatory” statements against the Trust and its permanent trustee Prashant Mehta.

Aggrieved by the notice issued in criminal defamation complaint, Jagdishan approached the HC. Senior advocates Ravi Kadam and Sudeep Pasbola for Jagdishan argued that the magistrate had issued the notice on the same day the complaint was filed and order to issue notice was made without recording complainant’s sworn verification, which was mandated as per the law.

On the other hand, senior advocate Aabad Ponda for the Trust argued that the magistrate was entitled to issue notice before taking cognisance of the case. The Trust argued that section 223 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provided that the court has to hear the accused before taking cognisance of the complaint, which the court rejected and said the same was incorrect if the main provision and the proviso of the section were considered together.

Justice Shriram M Modak emphasised that verification of complainant and witnesses after filing of private complaint was necessary and the proposed accused was required to be heard.

“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,” Justice Modak observed.

“There is a purpose of recording the verification. It gives an opportunity to the Magistrate to ascertain whether to proceed further or not, the judge added and quashed and set aside the order of issuance of notice to proposed accused Jagdishan.

The court clarified that the magistrate was at liberty to proceed with the matter by recording the verification of the Complainant and all witnesses, if any and then pass the appropriate order.

The Trust has also filed a defamation suit in Bombay HC against the HDFC Bank and Jagdishan seeking damages of Rs. 1,000 crore and the same is pending before the court.

Meanwhile, Jagdishan had filed a criminal writ petition challenging FIR registered against him on a complaint filed by the Trust, accusing him of accepting a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore to help a group consisting of one Chetan Mehta and other erstwhile trustees to retain alleged illegal control over the trust. The next hearing on Jagdishan’s writ plea is scheduled on August 20.