Hon’ble Supreme Court rejects the Quashing Petition filed by Actor Jacqueline Fernandez.
- Sunny S
- Sep 27
- 2 min read
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while rejecting the Quashing Petition filed by Actor Jacqueline Fernandez, upheld the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and declined to quash the proceedings under PMLA in a case linked to Suresh Chandrashekhar.
Introductory Facts
The case arose from allegations of money laundering against Ms. Jacqueline Fernandez, a well-known actor, in connection with gifts she received from Sukesh Chandrashekhar, an accused in a Rs. 200-crore extortion racket. While she was treated as a prosecution witness in the predicate offence investigated by the Economic Offences Wing, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) named her as an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Ms. Fernandez approached the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the ECIR and supplementary complaint filed against her.
Submissions by the Parties
On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that she was a victim of deception, not a conspirator. Sukesh, described as a "master conman," allegedly lured her into accepting lavish gifts through misrepresentation, with the aid of his associate, Pinky Irani. Her counsel stressed the absence of knowledge (mens rea) that these gifts were proceeds of crime, pointing out that she was simultaneously a witness in the predicate offence, making her prosecution under PMLA contradictory and unfair. The petitioner also claimed that the ED acted selectively, choosing to prosecute her while sparing other celebrities who also benefited from Sukesh’s generosity.
The ED, on the other hand, argued that Ms. Fernandez was well aware of Sukesh’s criminal background and yet continued to accept and enjoy the benefits. Her conduct—such as deleting mobile data, giving inconsistent statements, and instructing staff to conceal facts—was presented as evidence of culpability. The ED further submitted that proceedings under PMLA are independent of the predicate offence and that issues of knowledge and intent could only be determined at trial. Therefore, quashing at this pre-charge stage was said to be legally untenable.
Observations of the Hon’ble Court
The Delhi High Court refused to quash the proceedings, holding that the matter must proceed to trial. The Court observed that:
The petitioner’s claim of lack of knowledge is a "matter of evidence" and cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition.
Her conduct—including "staggered disclosures, concealment of facts, and deletion of digital evidence"—did not support her claim of innocence.
Proceedings under PMLA are "separate from the predicate offence", and being a witness in one does not prevent prosecution in the other.
The petitioner’s case did not fall under any category of cases where criminal proceedings may be quashed, as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasising that questions of intent, culpability, and the petitioner’s role can only be conclusively settled after a full-fledged trial before the Special Court.
