by Fatehi and Fernandez were both questioned in a money laundering case brought against alleged fraudster Sukesh Chandrashekhar.
Fatehi’s appeal alleged that Fernandez “made defamatory allegations” due to “malicious motives” with the intent to “destroy his career to advance his own interests”.
What exactly did Fernandez say about Fatehi? Why were the two plaintiffs questioned in the money laundering case? We explain.
Stories for subscribers only
Prize
Prize
Prize
PrizeWhat did Fatehi say in his plea?
Fatehi’s appeal alleged that Fernandez had given a written statement to the appellate court, PMLA, that she was “falsely implicated by the ED while celebrities like Nora Fatehi who received gifts from Conman Sukesh Chandrashekar were testified”.
This, Fatehi argued, was an attempt to smear her and destroy her career.
“Jacqueline Fernandes sought to criminally defame the complainant in order to destroy her career to advance her own interests, as they both work in the same industry and have similar backgrounds, among other reasons,” her application reads.
His claim stated that Fernandez’s statements were made to defame his image when Fatehi has nothing to do with the matter.
“It is pertinent to mention here that both the complainant (Nora Fatehi) and the defendant (Jacqueline Fernandez) are foreign-born actresses and both have had their share of struggles to achieve fame in the Indian film industry, so it is evident that the The accused’s act of dragging the complainant’s name in which he has no right to mention the complainant is bad faith in nature,” the plea stated.
While Fatehi is of Moroccan Canadian descent, Fernandez is from Sri Lanka. Fatehi’s appeal also sought to hold several media houses accountable in this case, claiming that he had tried to criminally reproduce the defamatory statements made by Fernandez.
Their involvement in the Sukesh case
Sukesh was accused of allegedly extorting Rs 200 crore from the wife of ex-Fortis Healthcare promoter Shivinder Singh. In its supplementary charge sheet filed in the case on 17 August, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) said that Fernandez had received gifts worth Rs 5.71 crore from Chandrashekhar, which came from the proceeds of the crime, but is “trying to justify himself that he was in fact the victim of manipulative actions by Sukesh towards him”.
In October of this year, the ED opposed Fernandez’s bail application, claiming he had made a failed bid to leave the country. He further stated that Fernandez never cooperated with the investigation and only made revelations in the face of evidence. Additionally, the agency claimed that Fernandez had cleared evidence and asked others involved in the case to do so as well.
However, in November, a Delhi court granted Fernandez bail. The court said that while she was accused of having received gifts from Sukesh with the proceeds of crime, it would be decided during the trial “whether there was any knowledge, intention or connection of the defendant in taking those gifts and of proceeds of crime in this Pencil case”.
Fatehi, who also received gifts from Sukesh, was questioned several times but was not charged. His statement was included in the prosecution’s complaint.
