Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash FIR, ED Probe Against Ex-Religare Chairperson Rashmi Saluja

The Bombay High Court has dismissed writ petitions filed by Dr Rashmi Saluja, former Executive Chairperson and key managerial person of Religare Enterprises Limited (REL), challenging an FIR registered against her in September 2024 and the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A Ankhad refused to interfere with and FIR registered at Matunga Police Station, as well as the case registered by the ED. The Court said the investigation had yielded sufficient material to proceed.

“Quite apparently, there is abundance of incriminating materials collected by the ED to file a Prosecution Complaint against the petitioner,” the Bench said.

Saluja had challenged the 2024 FIR and the ED proceedings arising from it. The matter traces back to an earlier FIR filed in November 2023 by a public shareholder of REL. That complaint alleged that former directors of the company, along with members of the Burman family and other entities, had conspired to gain control of REL through fraudulent means.

During the investigation into the 2023 FIR, the ED registered its case and carried out search and seizure operations. It also froze employee stock option (ESOP) shares held by Saluja. According to the ED, the probe revealed that the 2023 FIR itself had been lodged at Saluja's instance. The agency alleged that she had provided funds to the complainant to purchase REL shares and file the complaint.

On this basis, a separate FIR was registered against Saluja in 2024, alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy.

Saluja approached the High Court seeking the quashing of both the FIR and the ED case. The ED argued that the document used to initiate its investigation is an internal record and is not created under any statutory provision, and therefore cannot be challenged in a writ petition.

Saluja argued that the allegations against her were baseless and that the ED had acted with mala fide intent by selectively targeting her.

The Court rejected the plea. It held that at this stage it could only examine whether the allegations, if taken at face value, disclosed the commission of a criminal offence. It said the High Court cannot assess evidence or examine the merits of the case in a writ petition.

"The probative or evidentiary value of the materials collected in course of the investigation cannot be examined by the writ Court except in cases where it is demonstrable that the allegations assuming to be true and on its face value do not constitute a cognizable offence or the allegations disclose a purely civil dispute or the criminal proceeding is found manifestly attended with mala fide, malicious or instituted with an ulterior motive," the bench said, except in limited situations where no offence is made out or the case is clearly malicious.

On the allegation of mala fide, the court said assertions alone were not enough. “An inference of mala fide must be drawn after taking into account the attending circumstances. The presumption under law is in favour of bona fide action,” it held.

The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, Advocates Avinash Tripathi, Sankalp A. Sharma and Ameya Vaidya

For Respondents: Advocates Zohaib Hussain, Pranjal Tripathi, Anil D. Yadav and S.V Gavand, APP