New Delhi: The Bombay High Court has dismissed two petitions filed by Rashmi Saluja, former executive chairperson of Religare Enterprises, challenging registration of an FIR by the Mumbai Police and a subsequent case filed by the Enforcement Directorate over alleged financial irregularities at the company.
Finding "no substance" in her pleas, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar ruled that "quite apparently, there is abundance of incriminating materials collected by the ED to file a prosecution complaint (equivalent to a charge sheet) against" Saluja.
The ED filed the case with the Mumbai Police in September 2024, alleging that Saluja and her two colleagues conspired to derail a takeover bid for Religare by getting themselves shares issued under employee stock option plans. They also allegedly hired an office assistant to act as a shareholder and file a fake police complaint accusing the company's former promoters of financial irregularities.
The ED accused Saluja of making unlawful gains of ₹179.54 crore through the Esop allotment, and diversion of ₹192 crore of Religare funds to subscribe to the rights issue of Care Health Insurance at a high price. The federal agency last year froze these Esop shares of Saluja and the other executives.
"The position held by the petitioner (Saluja) was of a high responsibility, imputations against her are grave in nature and this court should, therefore, be loath in drawing any inference from the incomplete facts brought on record," the high court said.
It held that there was "no substance" in Saluja's contention that the Matunga police station, where the ED filed the case, had no jurisdiction to register the original FIR.
"There is no illegality in registration of the original FIR registered by the Mumbai Police in 2024 on the basis of the information supplied by the ED," the court said, adding that the registration of the FIR in 2024 would not become illegal "whether the officer in-charge of the police station mentions the ED as informant or simply writes 'source information".
Finding "no substance" in her pleas, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar ruled that "quite apparently, there is abundance of incriminating materials collected by the ED to file a prosecution complaint (equivalent to a charge sheet) against" Saluja.
The ED filed the case with the Mumbai Police in September 2024, alleging that Saluja and her two colleagues conspired to derail a takeover bid for Religare by getting themselves shares issued under employee stock option plans. They also allegedly hired an office assistant to act as a shareholder and file a fake police complaint accusing the company's former promoters of financial irregularities.
The ED accused Saluja of making unlawful gains of ₹179.54 crore through the Esop allotment, and diversion of ₹192 crore of Religare funds to subscribe to the rights issue of Care Health Insurance at a high price. The federal agency last year froze these Esop shares of Saluja and the other executives.
"The position held by the petitioner (Saluja) was of a high responsibility, imputations against her are grave in nature and this court should, therefore, be loath in drawing any inference from the incomplete facts brought on record," the high court said.
It held that there was "no substance" in Saluja's contention that the Matunga police station, where the ED filed the case, had no jurisdiction to register the original FIR.
"There is no illegality in registration of the original FIR registered by the Mumbai Police in 2024 on the basis of the information supplied by the ED," the court said, adding that the registration of the FIR in 2024 would not become illegal "whether the officer in-charge of the police station mentions the ED as informant or simply writes 'source information".
