Supreme Court refuses to quash money laundering case against actor Jacqueline Fernandez

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea by actor Jacqueline Fernandez seeking quashing of ₹215-crore money laundering case against her in which conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar is the prime accused [Jacqueline Fernandez vs. Directorate of Enforcement].

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih asked Fernandez to raise her defence before the trial court.

The Court was hearing Fernandez’s challenge to a Delhi High Court order which had earlier refused to interfere with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe.

The case stemmed from a money laundering investigation in which the ED alleged that Fernandez received luxury gifts worth around ₹7 crore from Chandrashekhar despite knowing his criminal background. The agency claimed she initially denied the relationship, admitted it only when confronted with evidence, and later deleted phone data after his arrest.

Fernandez, who has consistently denied wrongdoing, had earlier sought relief from the Delhi High Court, which on July 3 dismissed her plea.

This led to the appeal before the apex court.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Fernandez, opened arguments by stressing that his client had no connection to the alleged predicate offence of extortion.

He said Chandrashekhar, accused of impersonating government officials and duping a businesswoman of ₹200 crore, was merely infatuated with the actor.

“This man was infatuated with me. He sent gifts to me, bags and jewellery. There is no allegation that I helped him launder that ₹200 crore. I am not named in the predicate offence of extortion and no part of that money ever came to me,” Rohatgi submitted.

The bench, however, pointed out that the prosecution’s allegation was that a portion of the money trail led to Fernandez in the form of gifts.

“The allegation is a part of that ₹200 crore came to you as gifts. We appreciate that the law is such that anyone can be involved. Two very close friends - if one gives something to the other and then they commit a predicate offence, it becomes very difficult,” Justice Datta observed.

Rohatgi argued that his client could not be prosecuted by extending the scope of the law on the basis of suspicion.

“The predicate offence is extortion under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). I am not charged under MCOCA. I was supposed to be a witness. I never visited jail, I never asked him to give any money. If I am not charged under MCOCA, I cannot be charged in a camouflage of MCOCA in the same case,” he said.

The prosecution’s case, Rohatgi added, effectively came down to accusing Fernandez of negligence.

“Ultimately, the prosecution case is you should have been more careful,” he told the Court.

The bench noted that while a review petition on the scope of money laundering offences is pending, the precedent in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary still holds the field. It advised that the present challenge could not succeed at this stage in view of that judgment.

“We appreciate that it is in review but as on date Vijay Madanlal is law. The better option is you withdraw this and come at an appropriate stage,” Justice Datta said.

At Rohatgi’s request, the Court clarified that observations of the Delhi High Court in its earlier order would not prejudice Fernandez before the trial court.

“The observations made by the High Court in the impugned order were only while disposing of the case. The trial court while framing the charges may hear the petitioner afresh,” the bench directed, before dismissing the petition with liberty to approach later.

With today’s order, the Supreme Court has left it to the trial court to examine the actor's role in the case.

[Read Live Coverage]