Supreme Court rejects Rashmi Saluja’s plea to quash Mumbai Police FIR in ESOP case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday rejected Religare Enterprises' former executive chairman Rashmi Saluja's appeal seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) by the Mumbai Police and subsequent case filed by the Enforcement Directorate registered against her in connection with alleged irregularities in the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) allotments in Care Health Insurance Ltd.

The apex court upheld the Bombay High Court's January order that said there was "no substance" in the Saluja's stand that the state police had no jurisdiction to register the FIR. The HC said that there was abundance of incriminating materials collected by the ED to file a prosecution complaint (equivalent to a charge sheet) against Saluja and "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 ED had 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 Vaibhav Jalinder Gawali, who was allegedly paid ₹120,000 to purchase 500 shares of Religare Enterprises and another ₹80,000 as an assurance for taking care of his future needs, for filing 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 ED further alleged that the FIR by Gawali was to stop the Burman family from taking control of Religare Enterprises and Saluja to continue to enjoy sole control over the company.

"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.