Supreme Court Dismisses Jacqueline Fernandez's Plea To Quash Money Laundering Case Over Association With Sukesh Chandrasekhar

The Supreme Court today(September 22) dismissed a plea moved by Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez seeking quashing of the Rs. 200 crores money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. The actress moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay of trial, after the Delhi High Court dismissed her quashing plea in July. 

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court at appropriate stage.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the actress, submitted that the prosecution's case is that she should have been more careful while accepting gifts from Sukesh.

However, Justice Datta said that the law on this aspect is the 'Vijay Madanlal Choudhary' judgment, upholding the constitutionality of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act ("PMLA")

Justice Datta said: "The allegation is that, it was given to you as gifts. Nothing has been proved. At the stage of framing of charges, you have to accept what is the allegation. We appreciate that the law is such that anyone can be involved. Take it as, they were two very close friends and now if one friend gives something to the other friend, ultimately if it is found that the other person is involved in a predicate offence, very difficult. That's why we say, Vijay Madanlal has considered this part and we are bound by that."

However, Rohatgi responded that Vijay Madanlal also says the offence of abettment has to be committed 'unknowingly' and referred to Section 3 of the PMLA. "I must know that this man is extorting, and want to send me part of proceeds of extortion. With respect, otherwise I would be an accused in the main case. Now, please see one more crucial thing which the High Court missed. Along with predicate offence of extortion, there is MCOCA in Bombay. MCOCA is also extended to Delhi. MCOCA is identical to Section 3 [of PMLA]. So, predicate offence is extortion and MCOCA, which is identical to Section 3. Now, I am charged with MCOCA which is identical to PMLA extortion case and I am a witness. I am supposed to be a witness, what will I say? I came in touch with this man, I never went to any jail. I never asked him to give me any money, I met him because I am a film star, someone introduced me. If I am not charged under MCOCA, I can't be charged in the camouflage of MCOCA in the main case ," he argued.

But Justice Datta responded that this is not a case of 'unknowingly'. He suggested that the SLP may be withdrawn and the petitioner can approach the Court at the appropriate stage. Rohatgi requested that the observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment should not influence the trial, which the Court clarified that the observations were limited to the disposing of the quashing petition.

It ordered: "Dismissed with liberty to approach the Court. The observations made in the impugned judgment were only for the purpose of disposing of the petition. At the time of framing of charges, the special court shall be at liberty to hear the petitioner and pass the order."

To recap, Fernandez's plea before the High Court sought quashing of ED's ECIR as well as the second supplementary complaint arraigning her as the tenth accused in the case. In her plea, the actress said that the evidence filed by ED would prove that she is an “innocent victim” of Sukesh's “maliciously targeted attack.”

It added that was an admitted case of ED that the Tihar jail officials provided Sukesh unrestricted access to mobile phones and other technology, which was used by him to con the original complainant and many film artists, including her, with an identical modus operandi. It was also submitted that once ED, in its discretion, had presented Fernandez as a prosecution witness in the predicate offence, it logically followed that any proceedings arising as a consequence of the same should be quashed.

However, on July 3, Justice Anish Dayal dismissed the actress's plea, observing that her apprehension that any evidence would be self-incriminating cannot lead to quashing of the ECIR as statutory and constitutional protections are already provided and will have to be assessed in that rubric. This alone cannot assist the petitioner and release her from the yoke of prosecution under ECIR, the Court said.

It observed that all the aspects pleaded in the case put by the actress were subjective issues which require to be established through trial. “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."

Aggrieved, Fernandez approached the Supreme Court. Among other things, the actress contends that she is a prosecution witness in the predicate offense and that Sukesh and his aide Pinky Irani made several efforts to dupe her into believing that Sukesh was a successful businessman who was often politically targeted. "the Petitioner cannot be summoned to suffer trial for an offence u/S.3 of PMLA in the absence of any admissible evidence to indicate her positive knowledge that the gifts given to her were derived from any criminal activity", the plea states.

It is contended that the prosecution material itself is sufficient to establish a lack of mens rea on the petitioner's part, as no positive evidence has been brought forth to indicate that she had knowledge of the scheduled offence.

Case Details: JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ vDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT|SLP(Crl) No. 14759/2025