New Delhi, Sep 22 (UNI) The Supreme Court today refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez against the Delhi High Court order in the Rs 215 crore money laundering case linked to conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the matter is still at the stage of framing of charges and granted liberty to Fernandez to approach the Court at an appropriate stage.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had dismissed Fernandez’s petition seeking quashing of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), the supplementary complaint filed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), and all proceedings arising from it.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Fernandez, argued that Sukesh Chandrashekhar, accused of extorting over Rs 200 crore by impersonating senior government officials, was infatuated with the actress and sent her gifts worth Rs 5.7 crore.
Rohatgi submitted that Fernandez was not aware that the gifts were bought with proceeds of crime and that she has not been named in the predicate offence.
However, Justice Datta noted that the chargesheet recorded allegations that part of the extortion money reached Fernandez in the form of gifts. “The law is such that anybody can be involved,” the judge remarked, refusing to entertain the plea at this stage.
Rohatgi requested an adjournment of the matter, but the Bench declined. The Court clarified that Fernandez may approach the apex court later, once the trial progresses beyond the framing of charges.
In August 2021, a complaint was lodged by Aditi Shivinder Singh alleging extortion of over Rs 200 crore through calls from individuals impersonating senior government officials. A trap was later laid, leading to the exposure of the racket.
The Delhi High Court, while dismissing Fernandez’s petition earlier, held that at the stage of framing of charges, the prosecution’s material has to be accepted as true and the probative value of evidence cannot be assessed at this stage.
The Court also noted that the question of “knowledge” under PMLA could cover a broad spectrum from actual knowledge to willful blindness, which can only be determined at trial.
The Supreme Court dismissed Fernandez’s petition, leaving her the option to re-approach at a later stage of the proceedings.
