Conclusivity Can Only Precipitate During Trial: Delhi High Court Rejects Jacqueline Fernandez’s Plea In ₹200 Cr Money Laundering Case
The Delhi High Court said that it is only through trial that the prosecution is to prove that accused has committed the offence.
Jacqueline Fernandez
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Petition of actress Jacqueline Fernandez who has been an accused in Rs. 200 crores money laundering case.
The actress sought quashing of ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) and a supplementary complaint filed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom.
A Single Bench of Justice Anish Dayal observed, “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 Bench said that it is only through trial that the prosecution is to prove that accused has committed the offence and at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the material cannot be gone into and the material brought by the prosecution has to be accepted.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for the Petitioner/Accused while Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain appeared for the Respondent/ED.
Facts of the Case
In August 2021, a complaint was lodged by Aditi Shivinder Singh (Complainant) before DCP Special Cell, alleging extortion of crores of money from her since June 2020. She alleged that she had been receiving calls from persons impersonating as senior officials of the Government of India and had been duped into parting with funds of about Rs. 200 crores. On August 7, 2021, the Complainant informed that a further demand of Rs. 1 crore had been made and a trap was accordingly laid to trap the receiver of the extortion money. Pardeep Ramdanee was apprehended during the trap who disclosed that he used to collect money on the directions of Deepak Ramnani. Deepak Ramnani disclosed that he used to collect money for Sukesh Chandrashekhar, who was lodged in Rohini Jail No.10. Raids were conducted and Sukesh was arrested with two mobile phones, a charger and some documents.
During interrogation, he apparently disclosed that he impersonated a Senior Officer and extorted monies from the Complainant on the pretext of providing relief to her husband in the nature of release from Tihar Jail. Sukesh was arrested and remanded to custody. Based on the Complaint, an FIR was lodged by the Special Cell for offences punishable under Sections 170, 384, 386, 388, 419, 420, 506, and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 66 (D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). ED registered the impugned ECIR to investigate the offences under PMLA. In the 3rd supplementary charge sheet, the Petitioner-accused was arrayed as a prosecution witness on the basis that she had been defrauded by Sukesh.
The alleged extorted amount of Rs. 200 crores arising out from the predicate offence constitutes the ‘proceeds of crime’, as defined under Section 2 (1) (u) of PMLA. EOW's investigation revealed that extorted money was put to multiple uses by Sukesh, one of which was gifting branded goods to models/actresses to secure friendship with them. As part of this modus operandi, Sukesh contacted the Petitioner, through accused Pinky Irani. Sukesh was apparently introduced to Petitioner as a business tycoon based in South India and owner of Sun TV. It was alleged that the Petitioner received gifts worth at least Rs. 5.71 crores from Sukesh, knowing fully well of his criminal antecedents.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “In this regard, what ED highlights is that the Explanation to Section 3 of PMLA clearly indicates that the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is ‘directly’ or ‘indirectly’ enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment/possession/ acquisition/use/projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be sold.”
The Court added that ED’s submission regarding “continuing activity” is basis that Petitioner gave staggered disclosures.
“Taking into account these submissions of ED, the Court’s opinion that the ECIR is not amenable to be quashed, stands further endorsed and fortified. … ED’s reliance on Umesh Kumar (supra) which relied upon Salman Salim khan (supra) is instructive since it highlights that the Court cannot under Section 482 of Cr.P.C weigh the correctness and sufficiency of evidence and exercise may be too premature”, it further said.
The Court was of the opinion that all aspects pleaded in the case put by Petitioner are subjective issues which require to be established through trial.
“As an illustration, the petitioner contends that there was reluctance on her part, she was misled, hoodwinked, persuaded, she voluntarily participated in the investigation, she was ignorant, and was subjected to over indulgent actions of an admirer/fans/suitor, and in substance has been conned. All these aspects, are not established, crystallized, or proved yet. Ex facie these are subjective issues and petitioner is asserting that the Court accepts these as inviolable truths or as an optimistic interpretation of the facts in her favour”, it added.
The Court also observed that whether Petitioner knew that what was received were “proceeds of crime” is yet again an aspect tethered to establishing her ‘knowledge’ regarding criminal antecedents of Sukesh and the credibility of assertion that she was completely persuaded and misled by Pinky Irani to ignore it.
“The nuance that petitioner’s counsel is attempting to draw between knowledge of criminality and knowledge that articles were proceeds of crime may not be disjunctive issues sitting in two separate silos. Attribution of knowledge for the purposes of PMLA implication may potentially bring in its fold the full range, spectrum and degrees of “knowing”. For example, whether turning a blind eye to an obvious fact or disturbing news or a critical disclosure of illegality, would amount to “knowing” or not is a matter that, in this Court’s opinion, can be determined post-trial, when the Court has all strands of evidence for appreciation”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition and refused to quash case against accused.
Cause Title- Jacqueline Fernandez v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5236)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocates Aman Nandrajog, Prashant Patil, Gaurav Arora, and Arshiya Ghosh.
Respondent: Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, Panel Counsel Vivek Gurnani, Advocates Kartik Sabharwal, Pranjal Tripathi, Kanishk Maurya, Sai M Sud, and S. Vats.
