Supreme Court Dismisses Jacqueline Fernandez's Plea To Quash ₹200 Crore PMLA Case; Grants Liberty To Approach Trial Court

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez’s special leave petition seeking quashing of the ₹200 crore money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. The bench, however, granted her liberty to raise her grievances at the stage of framing of charges before the trial court.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's July order dismissing Fernandez’s quashing petition. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the actress, argued that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had failed to establish any mens rea or "positive knowledge" on her part regarding the proceeds of crime. “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,” observed Justice Datta, adding that the Court is bound by the decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which upheld the constitutionality of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Prosecution’s Case & Fernandez’s Contentions

The ED alleges that Fernandez knowingly received lavish gifts from Sukesh Chandrasekhar, who is accused of running an extortion racket from Tihar Jail with the help of jail officials. Fernandez, in her petition, submitted that she is an “innocent victim” who was misled into believing Chandrasekhar was a successful businessman.

Rohatgi contended that the ED’s own material shows that the actress had no knowledge that the gifts and money she received were proceeds of crime. He further submitted that: “If I am not charged under MCOCA [Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act], I can't be charged in the camouflage of MCOCA in the main case.”

Rohatgi also pointed out that Fernandez was shown as a prosecution witness in the predicate offence of extortion, and argued that her being made an accused under PMLA in a supplementary complaint was contradictory and unjustified.

Court’s View: Allegations Must Be Accepted at Charge Stage

Justice Datta clarified that the High Court's observations were limited to the quashing petition and shall not influence the trial. The Court observed: “Take it as, they were two very close friends… if one friend gives something to the other, and it is ultimately found that the other person is involved in a predicate offence it becomes very difficult.”

The Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the allegations must be presumed true unless demonstrably baseless, and the trial court is the proper forum to evaluate evidence and determine culpability.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all grounds before the Special Court. The bench also noted that the trial court shall not be influenced by the High Court's observations made while disposing of the quashing plea.

Delhi High Court Had Earlier Rejected Quashing Plea

On July 3, 2025, Justice Anish Dayal of the Delhi High Court had dismissed Fernandez’s plea to quash the ECIR and the second supplementary complaint filed by the ED. The Court had held that Fernandez’s apprehension regarding self-incrimination could not be a ground to quash the proceedings.

“Whether turning a blind eye to an obvious fact… would amount to ‘knowing’ is a matter that can be determined post-trial,” the High Court observed, stressing that such subjective matters require trial for resolution.

In the SLP, Fernandez argued: She had no mens rea or knowledge of any scheduled offence. She was misled by Sukesh and his aide Pinky Irani. She was a witness in the predicate offence and should not be prosecuted under PMLA for related facts. The ED’s case lacked admissible evidence showing conscious involvement. The plea was filed through Advocate-on-Record Sumeer Sodhi.

Case Title: Jacqueline Fernandez v. Directorate of Enforcement