Delhi High Court Rejects Jacqueline Fernandez’s Plea In ₹200 Cr Money Laundering Case
The Delhi Excessive Court docket has dismissed the Petition of actress Jacqueline Fernandez who has been an accused in Rs. 200 crores cash laundering case.
The actress sought quashing of ECIR (Enforcement Case Info Report) and a supplementary criticism filed below Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom.
A Single Bench of Justice Anish Dayal noticed, “Conclusivity can solely precipitate through the trial which is the filtration mechanism provided by the legal justice course of. Accepting these interpretations in favour of the petitioner at this stage would upend the method fully.”
The Bench stated that it is just by means of trial that the prosecution is to show that accused has dedicated the offence and on the stage of framing of cost, probative worth of the fabric can’t be gone into and the fabric introduced by the prosecution needs to be accepted.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for the Petitioner/Accused whereas Particular Counsel Zoheb Hossain appeared for the Respondent/ED.
Information of the Case
In August 2021, a criticism was lodged by Aditi Shivinder Singh (Complainant) earlier than DCP Particular Cell, alleging extortion of crores of cash from her since June 2020. She alleged that she had been receiving calls from individuals impersonating as senior officers of the Authorities of India and had been duped into parting with funds of about Rs. 200 crores. On August 7, 2021, the Complainant knowledgeable {that a} additional demand of Rs. 1 crore had been made and a lure was accordingly laid to lure the receiver of the extortion cash. Pardeep Ramdanee was apprehended through the lure who disclosed that he used to gather cash on the instructions of Deepak Ramnani. Deepak Ramnani disclosed that he used to gather cash for Sukesh Chandrashekhar, who was lodged in Rohini Jail No.10. Raids have been performed and Sukesh was arrested with two cellphones, a charger and a few paperwork.
Throughout interrogation, he apparently disclosed that he impersonated a Senior Officer and extorted monies from the Complainant on the pretext of offering aid to her husband within the nature of launch from Tihar Jail. Sukesh was arrested and remanded to custody. Based mostly on the Grievance, an FIR was lodged by the Particular Cell for offences punishable below Sections 170, 384, 386, 388, 419, 420, 506, and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Part 66 (D) of the Info Know-how Act, 2000 (IT Act). ED registered the impugned ECIR to analyze the offences below PMLA. Within the third supplementary cost sheet, the Petitioner-accused was arrayed as a prosecution witness on the idea that she had been defrauded by Sukesh.
The alleged extorted quantity of Rs. 200 crores arising out from the predicate offence constitutes the ‘proceeds of crime’, as outlined below Part 2 (1) (u) of PMLA. EOW’s investigation revealed that extorted cash was put to a number of makes use of by Sukesh, one in every of which was gifting branded items to fashions/actresses to safe friendship with them. As a part of this modus operandi, Sukesh contacted the Petitioner, by means of accused Pinky Irani. Sukesh was apparently launched to Petitioner as a enterprise tycoon based mostly in South India and proprietor of Solar TV. It was alleged that the Petitioner obtained items value not less than Rs. 5.71 crores from Sukesh, realizing absolutely nicely of his legal antecedents.
Reasoning
The Excessive Court docket in view of the above info, famous, “On this regard, what ED highlights is that the Rationalization to Part 3 of PMLA clearly signifies that the method or exercise related with proceeds of crime is a unbroken exercise and continues until such time an individual is ‘instantly’ or ‘not directly’ having fun with the proceeds of crime by its concealment/possession/ acquisition/use/projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be offered.”
The Court docket added that ED’s submission concerning “persevering with exercise” is foundation that Petitioner gave staggered disclosures.
“Considering these submissions of ED, the Court docket’s opinion that the ECIR isn’t amenable to be quashed, stands additional endorsed and fortified. … ED’s reliance on Umesh Kumar (supra) which relied upon Salman Salim khan (supra) is instructive because it highlights that the Court docket can not below Part 482 of Cr.P.C weigh the correctness and sufficiency of proof and train could also be too untimely”, it additional stated.
The Court docket was of the opinion that every one elements pleaded within the case put by Petitioner are subjective points which require to be established by means of trial.
“As an illustration, the petitioner contends that there was reluctance on her half, she was misled, hoodwinked, persuaded, she voluntarily participated within the investigation, she was ignorant, and was subjected to over indulgent actions of an admirer/followers/suitor, and in substance has been conned. All these elements, should not established, crystallized, or proved but. Ex facie these are subjective points and petitioner is asserting that the Court docket accepts these as inviolable truths or as an optimistic interpretation of the info in her favour”, it added.
The Court docket additionally noticed that whether or not Petitioner knew that what was obtained have been “proceeds of crime” is but once more a side tethered to establishing her ‘data’ concerning legal antecedents of Sukesh and the credibility of assertion that she was fully persuaded and misled by Pinky Irani to disregard it.
“The nuance that petitioner’s counsel is making an attempt to attract between data of criminality and data that articles have been proceeds of crime will not be disjunctive points sitting in two separate silos. Attribution of data for the needs of PMLA implication could doubtlessly usher in its fold the total vary, spectrum and levels of “realizing”. For instance, whether or not turning a blind eye to an apparent truth or disturbing information or a vital disclosure of illegality, would quantity to “realizing” or not is a matter that, on this Court docket’s opinion, might be decided post-trial, when the Court docket has all strands of proof for appreciation”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Excessive Court docket dismissed the Petition and refused to quash case towards accused.
Trigger Title- Jacqueline Fernandez v. Directorate of Enforcement (Impartial Quotation: 2025:DHC:5236)
Look:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocates Aman Nandrajog, Prashant Patil, Gaurav Arora, and Arshiya Ghosh.
Respondent: Particular Counsel Zoheb Hossain, Panel Counsel Vivek Gurnani, Advocates Kartik Sabharwal, Pranjal Tripathi, Kanishk Maurya, Sai M Sud, and S. Vats.
