Facts: Dr. Rashmi Saluja, the Executive Chairman and Key Managerial Person of Religare Enterprises Limited (REL), filed writ petitions challenging a First Information Report (FIR) registered against her on 6th September 2024, vide FIR No.355 of 2024, and the subsequent Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR/MBZO-I/27/2024) registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The FIR was based on allegations of fraud, conspiracy, and violations of the Companies Act and SEBI regulations, stemming from a complaint by a public shareholder of REL, Vaibhav Jalinder Gawali, who alleged that former directors of REL colluded with the Burman family to gain control of REL through fraudulent means. The ED alleged that Dr. Saluja unlawfully gained Rs.179.54 crores by acquiring Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) at a lower price and diverting funds to subscribe to a rights issue of Care Health Insurance Ltd (CHIL).
Procedural Posture: The case came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay as two writ petitions: one challenging the FIR (Criminal Writ Petition No. 2538 of 2025) and the other challenging the ECIR registered under the PMLA (Criminal Writ Petition No. 2254 of 2025). The petitioner sought quashing of both the FIR and the ECIR.
Issue: Whether the FIR No.355 of 2024 and the ECIR/MBZO-I/27/2024 registered against the petitioner are legally sustainable, considering the allegations of fraud, conspiracy, and violations of the Companies Act and SEBI regulations, and whether the registration of the FIR and ECIR are barred by any law. Also, whether the order taking cognizance of the offence by the Metropolitan Magistrate is valid.
Holding: The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, finding no substance in the petitioner's contentions.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Matunga Police Station had jurisdiction to register the FIR, and its registration was not barred by any law. The involvement of the petitioner was detected during the ECIR investigation. The Court held that there was no illegality in registering the FIR based on information supplied by the ED. The Court also found no error in the Metropolitan Magistrate's order taking cognizance of the offence, stating that a detailed order is not required at the stage of issuing summons. The Court emphasized that the PMLA has precedence over other laws relating to crime due to its non-obstante clause. The Court noted the ED had collected sufficient incriminating materials to file a Prosecution Complaint against the petitioner, alleging unlawful gain through ESOPs and diversion of funds. The Court stated that allegations of mala fide action by the ED were based on selective reading of statements and did not warrant interference.