Introduction:

In a recent development, Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez has approached the Delhi High Court, seeking the quashing of a Rs. 200 crores money laundering case linked to alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) faces a plea challenging their Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and a supplementary complaint that implicates Fernandez as the tenth accused. The court, presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh, issued notice on the actress’s plea, setting the stage for a legal showdown.

Arguments Presented: 

The ED, represented by special counsel Zoheb Hossian, objected to the maintainability of Fernandez’s plea, emphasizing that challenging the prosecution complaint without contesting the order of cognizance was not permissible. Hossian highlighted the special court’s stance that a prima facie case existed against the actress, making it appropriate to proceed with the case. Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, representing Jacqueline Fernandez, countered by asserting that the plea covered every order in the criminal proceedings and contended that the order of cognizance was irrelevant to Fernandez.

In her plea, the actress claimed innocence, stating that the evidence presented by the ED would reveal her as a victim of Sukesh Chandrashekhar’s targeted attack. Fernandez argued that she had no involvement in aiding Chandrashekhar in money laundering and could not be prosecuted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The plea also highlighted that Fernandez’s statement had been recorded as a prosecution witness, implying her lack of knowledge about the alleged offenses committed by Chandrashekhar.

Court’s Judgment: 

The court scheduled the next hearing for January 29, allowing both parties to present their cases comprehensively. Jacqueline Fernandez’s plea underscores the assertion that she was unaware of Chandrashekhar’s activities and emphasizes the lack of concrete evidence supporting the money laundering charges. The court is poised to evaluate the validity of the ED’s case against the actress and determine whether there is sufficient ground to continue with the prosecution.