Plea ‘unwarranted': Delhi HC declines to quash money laundering case against actress Jacqueline Fernandez
Justice Anish Dayal said it effectively amounted to 'asking the court to reach a conclusion' that she is innocent.
Dismissing the plea, the judge said, 'It is only through trial that the prosecution is to prove that the accused has committed the offence. At the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the material cannot be gone into and the material brought by the prosecution has to be accepted…'
The plea filed by Fernandez sought to quash an Enforcement Case Information Report or ECIR (ED complaint) in which she has been accused of money laundering along with alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar based on an earlier offence lodged by the Special Cell, New Delhi.
The Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing (EOW) had filed a charge sheet under various sections of the Indian Penal code (IPC) and sections 3 and 4 of Maharashtra Control Of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against Sukesh and various other associates for extortion amounting to nearly Rs 200 crore.
The money trail had led to Fernandez who had received gifts from Sukesh's alleged proceeds of crime.
Fernandez claimed before the court that she herself was a victim of the modus operandi used by Sukesh and that other similarly placed victims have not been proceeded against under PMLA, alleging that the ED was adopting a 'pick-and-choose' policy against her.
She also argued that she is not an accused in the predicate offence, but a witness.
The judge said, 'The Court is being asked, on the basis of material on record, to effectively conclude that petitioner was innocent, devoid of any knowledge of Sukesh's criminal antecedents and was conclusively and effectively duped and misled…'
'The apprehension of petitioner 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 noted.
Concluding that 'all aspects pleaded in the case put by petitioner…are subjective issues which require to be established through trial…', the court dismissed the plea saying, 'Conclusivity can only precipitate during the trial which is the filtration mechanism offered by the criminal justice process. Accepting these interpretations in favour of the petitioner at this stage would upend the process completely.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Excise policy scam case: What's the fear in supplying list of ‘unrelied documents', Delhi HC asks CBI
'What is the fear' in providing the list of 'unrelied upon documents (URDs)', the Delhi High Court orally asked the CBI on Friday while hearing a petition filed by the central agency against a May 22 trial court order in connection with the excise policy scam case. The trial court had directed that summons to produce documents or summons to individuals must be included in the list of URDs. 'Unrelied' documents are collected by probe agencies at the time of investigation but not used as evidence by the prosecution. The CBI has challenged the May 22 Rouse Avenue special CBI court order, which had stated that the court will proceed with the arguments on charges 'once the relied-upon digital evidence copy and the list of URDs are supplied to the accused individuals'. The trial court had reasoned that 'as the CBI must provide copies of relied-upon digital data currently with CFSL (Central Forensic Science Laboratory), this court cannot yet hear arguments on charge, given that all relied-upon documents must be available to the accused before charges'. It had directed that 'all notices under Section 91/160 CrPC and written communications sent by CBI to others, including witnesses and accused, and all written communications/documents received by CBI concerning those notices/written communications, must be included in the list of URDs if CBI does not intend to rely on them in this trial'. Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) empowers police officers to summon individuals to assist in the probe. Directing that the list of URDs should be filed in court, and copies of the list must be supplied to all accused, the trial court had directed that the investigating officer (IO) 'shall file an affidavit confirming that no other such notice/communication/document is omitted from the relied-upon documents or the URD'. Opposing the direction to the IO, the CBI, while arguing before Justice Ravinder Dudeja, also opposed the direction that notices issued to and statements made by the accused under Section 160 of CrPC — before they were considered to be an accused in the case — be considered a part of URDs. The CBI's counsel told HC, 'We have already given whatever we are relying upon, the (special CBI) judge wants the entire data to be given… CrPC sections 91 and 160 are tools of investigation, how can it be given? It is not part of the evidence collected.' 'There cannot be a procedure in the Delhi excise case which is different from any other case… (IO of) CBI has to file an affidavit for (filing all unrelied communication/notices) everything? It is unheard of… Some people have intimate messages and videos, some have competitive information (as businesses are also accused in the case)… There are privacy concerns… Inter se, conflict of privacy in URDs should not stall the trial,' the counsel added. Further opposing the supply of CrPC Section 160 notices and statements of accused recorded prior to them being made accused, the CBI added, 'Once they have been made accused, that statement is not part of relied upon or unrelied upon documents, because those statements can also trample upon somebody's right to self-incrimination.' Justice Dudeja, however, asked the CBI's counsel, '…Point is, why should it not be given… Disclosure statements of accused persons are not made part of the record… Why did you record the statement of the accused at the first instance if you were not going to rely, or not rely on such statements? You can provide the list (of URDs).' While CBI contended that if included in the list of URDs, 'it will then be seen by everybody else', Justice Dudeja orally responded, 'Show then… what is the fear… What is the prejudice being caused to you in case you hand over the copies of the notices under CrPC Section 160? Why do you not want to share these notices?' The CBI contended, 'It is not about fear, it's about what is relevant and not… (If the trial court's directions are upheld) what will happen is, it will become a practice (of including CrPC Section 160 notices) which does not exist at all… It is a roving inquiry.' A defence advocate for the accused, Rajat Bharadwaj, contended before the court, 'The fear is the entire frivolous investigation they have done will come all out in the open. Since past six months, they are not supplying us these documents… thereby these directions have been passed by the trial court.' Another defence advocate, Adit Pujari, added, 'This is a bogey being played (by CBI)… that supply of the list is going to delay arguments on charge…' While an order is awaited, Justice Dudeja indicated that the court is not inclined to stay the order till a status report is filed, all accused are served and their responses to the CBI's petition come on record. The court also indicated that it is agreeable only to the aspect of staying the direction that requires the IO to file an affidavit before the trial court.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Maharashtra: ED registers fresh money laundering case against husband of IPS officer in two fraud cases involving Rs 32 crore
The Enforcement Directorate recently registered a fresh money laundering case against Purushottam Chavan, husband of Maharashtra IPS officer Rashmi Karandikar. Confirming the development, a source said the central agency's fresh Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered under relevant sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against Chavan is based on two FIRs filed by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Mumbai Police in February this year pertaining to the two offences committed between March 2015 and April 2024. The central agency suspects that the accused laundered money for the purpose of defrauding innocent people and making wrongful gains. In the first case of EOW, Chavan and 11 others are accused of allegedly duping 20 people of Rs 24.78 crore under the pretext of selling them government quota flats in Mumbai, Thane, and Pune at concessional rates using his influence in the government departments. In the second FIR, Chavan is accused of defrauding a Surat-based businessman, Raosaheb Desai and others of Rs 7.42 crore. He allegedly accepted money from the businessman under the false pretense of selling plots from the government quota at a discounted rate. Also, he allegedly promised to assist the businessman in securing contracts for supplying T-shirts to the Maharashtra Police Academy in Nashik, but he never delivered on his promises. In both these cases, Chavan was previously arrested by EOW. Chavan has been in judicial custody ever since he was arrested by the ED in May last year in a Rs 263-crore income tax refund (ITR) fraud case. Besides this, the Gujarat Police also arrested Chavan a few months ago in connection with a third cheating case. Chavan's wife IPS officer Karandikar was earlier enquired by EOW about the details of Rs 2.5 crore she allegedly received from an ICICI bank account belonging to her accused husband. She has allegedly diverted this money to invest in share trading. However, so far, she has not been named as an accused in the case, an EOW officer said. The EOW last month has written to the Maharashtra DGP office seeking details if Karandikar had informed the department before making investment in the share trading. 'We are awaiting a report from the DG office. In case we find of share transactions which are not permitted as per the conduct rule, then we will be subsequently writing for a departmental action against Karandikar,' said a senior EOW officer. Karandikar has already distanced herself from Chavan.
India Gazette
2 hours ago
- India Gazette
NIA chargesheets another accused for promoting banned PFI's activities in Bihar
New Delhi [India], July 4 (ANI): The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has chargesheeted one more accused in a case relating to the anti-national activities of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) in Bihar, the NIA said in a statement on Friday. Md. Sajjad Alam of East Champaran district, Bihar, is the 18th accused to be arrested and charged in the case RC-31/2022/NIA/DLI. In its supplementary chargesheet filed on Friday before the NIA Special Court, Patna, the anti-terror agency has charged the accused, who was arrested from IGI Airport at New Delhi on his arrival from Dubai (UAE) in January this year, under various sections of the IPC and UA(P) Act. Earlier, the NIA Special Court had issued an arrest warrant against Sajjad, an active PFI cadre. NIA Investigations had revealed that the accused was involved in channelising illegal funds from Dubai to PFI cadres in Bihar through a syndicate based in Karnataka and Kerala. The funds were used for furthering criminal/unlawful activities of PFI even after its ban by the Government of India. The PFI conspiracy, aimed at establishing Islamic rule in India by 2047, involved unlawful activities by the outfit's cadres in order to terrorise people and disrupt the country's peace and harmony by spreading religious enmity between different groups. The case was originally registered on 12th July 2022 at PS Phulwarisharif in Patna district against 26 persons under the IPC. NIA took up the investigation a few days later and invoked the UA (P) Act in the case and had earlier chargesheeted 17 accused persons, the NIA said. Further investigations in the case are continuing, it added. Earlier, in a significant development in its ongoing probe into the targeted murder of BJP Yuva Morcha member Praveen Nettaru, allegedly carried out by members of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI), the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Friday arrested a prime accused who had been on the run for two years. The accused, Abdul Rahaman, who carried a bounty of Rs 4 lakh, was arrested by an NIA team upon his arrival from Qatar at Kannur International Airport. A total of four accused, including Rahaman and two other absconders, were chargesheeted by NIA in this case in April this year, taking the total chargesheeted in the case to had also declared rewards for information relating to six absconders. Rahaman was carrying a reward of Rs 4 lakh for this investigations had revealed that 'Rahaman had, on directions of PFI leadership, voluntarily harboured the main assailants and others involved in the case.''Rahaman had fled to Qatar after the attackers were arrested,' said the NIA in a statement. Nettaru was brutally killed with sharp weapons by PFI cadres and members on July 26, 2022 in Bellare village of Sullia Taluk in Karnataka's Dakshina Kannada district. The killing was part of a larger conspiracy aimed at striking terror among the people and unleashing communal hatred and unrest in the which had re-registered the case as of August 4, 2022, is trying to track down the remaining absconders. (ANI)
