Today, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the SLP filed by the Bollywood Actress Jacqueline Fernandez against the order of the Delhi High Court, citing that the matter was still at the stage of framing of charges and suggested that Fernandes may approach the Court at an appropriate stage.

Earlier, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Petition of actress Jacqueline Fernandez who is accused in a Rs. 215 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.

The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, "For some time, you withdraw this case and come at appropriate time. We will not interested at the moment."


Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Fernandes, submitted that a man named Sukesh Chandrashekhar (who was accused of extortion of money by impersonating as senior officials of the Government of India), was a con-man and is currently in jail.

"He shows to various people on video as if he is a Minister or Secretary sitting somewhere and not in jail. He has access to 24 hours- video", Rohatgi informed the Court.

Thereafter, Rohatgi submitted that Sukesh approached the Complainant, whose husband was in jail for many years, and impersonated as a Secretary associated with the Government of India and demanded 200 crores from her on the pretext that he can get her husband out of jail.

Further, Rohatgi submitted that Sukesh was infatuated towards Fernandes and the actress was not aware of the fact that Sukesh was in jail.

"He sent gifts to me worth 5.7 crores. It is only gifts. There is no allegation that I will be guilty of laundering. I am not an accused in the predicate offence...It is nobody's case that any part of that 200 crores came to me", said Rohatgi.

To which Justice Datta said that the charge sheet records that a part of that money came to Fernandes as gifts, and that there is such an allegation.

"The law is such that anybody can be involved", Justice Datta remarked.

However, Rohatgi continued to insist that Jacqueline Fernandes has not been listed as an accused in the predicate offence. While referring to Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Rohatgi submitted that Fernandes does not know about the fact that Suresh gifted her out of money taken in extortion.

"I (Fernandes) am supposed to be a witness. I came in touch with man. I never went to any jail...He gifted me because I am a film star. Some other woman introduced him to me", submitted Rohatgi. He also argued that the prosecution's case is merely the fact that Fernandes should have been more careful.

"For some time, you withdraw this case and come at appropriate time. We will not interested at the moment", said Justice Datta, as the case against Fernandes was still at the stage of framing of charge.

Upon which, Rohatgi requested to adjourn the matter; however, the bench refused to adjourn the case.

Subsequently, the Apex Court granted the liberty that Fernandes may approach the Court at an appropriate stage.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Background

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.

The Delhi High Court, while dismissing the Petition of Fernandez, said that it was 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.

The Bench also observed, “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.”

Cause Title: Jacqueline Fernandez V. ED SLP(Crl) No. 14759/2025 II-D

Justice Dipankar DattaJustice Augustine George Masih

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.