Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

SC junks Jacqueline Fernandez’s plea in money laundering case

The Bench, however, gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the top court at an appropriate stage
Jacqueline Fernandez. File photo

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with an order dismissing actor Jacqueline Fernandez’s plea to quash an Enforcement Directorate ECIR (equivalent to an FIR) in the Rs 200 crore money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.

Advertisement

“You withdraw this. Come at an appropriate stage. That would be the better option. We will not interfere at this stage,” a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih told senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who represented Fernandez.

Advertisement

The Bench, however, gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the top court at an appropriate stage.

Rohatgi told the Bench there was no allegation that Fernandez helped Chandrasekhar in laundering Rs 200 crore.

However, the Bench said, “The allegation is that it was given to you as a gift. Nothing has been proved. At the stage of framing of charges, you have to accept what the allegation is. 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…(it’s) very difficult…Vijay Madanlal (case verdict) has considered this part and we are bound by that.”

Advertisement

In July 2022, the Supreme Court had upheld PMLA provisions (Sections 5, 8(4), 15, 17 and 19 of the PMLA) relating to the ED’s power of arrest, attachment and search and seizure.

“I must know that this man is extorting, and want to send me part of the proceeds of extortion. With respect, otherwise I would be an accused in the main case,” Rohatgi submitted.

But the Bench said, “Dismissed with liberty to approach the court.”

Fernandez has challenged the high court’s July 3 order which dismissed her petition seeking quashing of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in the money laundering case. She is an accused in the money laundering case lodged against Chandrasekhar and had appeared before the ED for questioning in the investigation.

The Delhi Police had booked Chandrasekhar for allegedly duping the spouses of former promoters of Ranbaxy, Shivinder Singh and Malvinder Singh of Rs 200 crore.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement