Actor Jacqueline Fernandez on Monday failed to get relief from the Supreme Court, which refused to interfere with an order dismissing her plea to quash an ECIR (equivalent to FIR) in a Rs 200 crore money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.
IMAGE: A file photograph of Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez at the Patiala House court in connection with the alleged Rs.200 crore money laundering case involving Sukesh Chandrashekhar, New Delhi, April 5, 2023. Photograph: ANI Photo
“You withdraw this. Come at an appropriate stage. That would be the better option. We will not interfere at this stage,” a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih told senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who represented Fernandez.
Rohatgi told the bench there was no allegation that Fernandez helped Chandrasekhar in laundering of Rs 200 crore.
“I am a film star. This man (Chandrasekhar) is a constar who is in jail. He is accused of impersonating ministers and senior secretaries to the government of India,” he said.
Rohatgi said Chandrasekhar was actually “infatuated” with Fernandez and she did not knew originally that he was in jail.
Arguing that Chandrasekhar had sent her gifts like bags, the senior advocate said Fernandez was not an accused in the predicate offence of alleged extortion.
Fernandez, in her plea filed through advocate Sumeer Sodhi, challenged the Delhi high court’s July 3 order which dismissed her petition for quashing the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in the money laundering case.
Fernandez is an accused in the case against Chandrasekhar and has appeared before the Enforcement Directorate.
The Delhi police booked Chandrasekhar for allegedly duping the spouses of former promoters of Ranbaxy, Shivinder Singh and Malvinder Singh of Rs 200 crore.
Fernandez, it was alleged, received gifts worth at least Rs 5.71 crore from Chandrasekhar, knowing fully well of his criminal antecedents.
On Monday, Rohatgi argued that the prosection’s case was that the actor should have been more careful.
The bench referred to the apex court’s Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment which upheld the ED’s powers related to arrest; attachment of property involved in money laundering besides search and seize under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
“Vijay Madanlal is still the law. At the stage of framing of charge, you have to accept what is the allegation,” it said.
“The law is such that anyone can be involved,” the bench said.
Citing an example of two close friends, the bench said if one of them gives something to the other and ultimately if it was found that the person was involved in a predicate offence, it is “very difficult”.
Rohatgi referred to Section 3 of the PMLA which deals with the offence of money laundering.
After the bench said it would not interfere with the high court’s order at this stage and the petitioner could approach the court at an appropriate stage, Rohatgi requested that the matter be adjourned for some time.
The bench said it would dismiss the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the court at an appropriate stage.
Rohatgi said the observations made by the high court in its July 3 order should not come in her way in at the stage of charge.
The bench said the observations made in the high court’s judgement were only for the purpose of disposing of the petition before it.
The high court dismissed her plea which also sought to quash the second supplementary chargesheet of the ED in the case and proceedings pending in a Delhi trial court.
Chandrasekhar and his wife Leena Paulose, facing proceedings in a money laundering case of the ED, were arrested by Delhi Police along with others.
The police also invoked the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
Paulose and Chandrasekhar were alleged to have used hawala routes and created shell companies along with other accused persons to park the money earned as proceeds of crime.
