E-Paper
SC declines to quash money laundering case against Jacqueline Fernandez
“The petition is dismissed with liberty to raise the matter at an appropriate stage,” a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih said.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday turned down Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez’s plea to quash the money laundering case in connection with the over ₹200 crore extortion case against alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, in which she is accused of receiving gifts bought out of the alleged proceeds of crime.
“The petition is dismissed with liberty to raise the matter at an appropriate stage,” a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih said.
The court, however, allowed her to approach the top court at a later stage and directed the trial court to deal with all her objections at the stage of framing charges, without getting influenced by the observations made by the Delhi high court that dismissed her plea on July 3.
Fernandez was represented by senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Agarwal, who argued that many persons liked to meet her since she was a filmstar and Sukesh Chandrashekhar sent her gifts that she never asked for. “To say that I helped him launder the ₹200 crore is not made out as I am not even named in the predicate offence of extortion on which the ED has begun a probe.”
The bench underlined that the allegation was that a part of the ₹200 crore came to the actor as a gift. “You have to accept the allegation against you till it is proved at the stage of framing of charge. You withdraw and come at an appropriate stage,” the bench told Jacqueline Fernandez.
Rohatgi also stressed that there was nothing to show that she asked for these gifts or that she went to meet him in jail. “I met him because I am a film star and someone introduced him to me, saying he is a businessman. This man was infatuated with me and sent gifts, bags for me. I never asked him to give any money, gifts, etc.”
The bench responded: “Suppose they were two close friends. Now, if one friend gives something to the other friend, and ultimately, it is found that the other person is involved in a predicate offence. It becomes difficult to accept what you say. For us, the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (2022) has considered the law on PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), and it binds us.”
Rohatgi said that the review against the 2022 Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary decision was pending, and the court could take up the matter after some time. However, on his concern that the observations made by high court should not affect the trial against him, the bench said, “We are told that the observations made in the judgment by the high court was only for the purpose of disposing of the petition. The trial court, at the stage of framing of charge, shall be at liberty to hear the petitioner afresh.”
In her petition filed through advocate Sumeer Sodhi, Fernandez said, “The petitioner cannot be summoned to suffer trial for an offence under section 3 of PMLA (offence of money laundering) in the absence of any admissible evidence to indicate her positive knowledge that the gifts given to her were derived from any criminal activity.”
She sought quashing of the case against her lodged by the ED based on a criminal case filed by the Delhi Police in August 2021. This case came to be registered on a complaint by the wife of former Fortis Healthcare promoter Shivinder Mohan Singh after she was conned by Sukesh Chandrashekhar who called her and impersonated a top government official and sought ₹215 crore to arrange for her husband’s release on bail.
ED named Fernandez as an accused in its supplementary prosecution complaint of August 17, 2022, although she hadn’t been named an accused in the extortion case probed by Delhi police.
According to ED, Fernandez was accused of being in possession of proceeds of crime in the form of various gifted articles, worth over ₹7 crore. The petition filed by the actress further pointed out that she was listed as a witness, not an accused, in a case probed by Mumbai Police against Chandrashekhar for allegations of extortion under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
On July 3, the Delhi high court order refused to quash the ED case against Fernandez. “The petitioner contends that there was reluctance on her part, she was misled, hoodwinked… Conclusivity can only precipitate during the trial which is the filtration mechanism offered by the criminal justice process. Accepting these interpretations in favour of the petitioner at this stage would upend the process completely,” the high court said.
