CMRL Exalogic Case: Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict On Plea Seeking Vigilance FIR Against Pinarayi Vijayan, Kin

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 29) reserved its verdict in the plea to register FIR incorporating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Leader of Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena and son-in-law Mohammed Riyas in the case.

Justice A. Badharudeen heard detailed arguments by petitioner's counsel V. Sethunath, Advocate General K. Jaju Babu as well as the standing counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

"This is the law. Registration of FIR is mandatory. But whether it is mandatory is to be decided on the facts involved in each case. In a case, which would show that another preliminary enquiry to go for more clarification is necessary, such a course of action is not fully prohibited. That is an exception. But the general principle is a report or an information given by the ED under Section 66(2) is a substitute for a preliminary enquiry to find that there are truth in allegation which would require investigation by registering FIR. This is the law," the Court remarked during the hearing.

The Court also perused the ED's communication to the State Police Chief, produced in a sealed cover, regarding findings of PC Act offences against the former Chief Minister and family members. It remarked that a decision would be made based on the contents of the same as well as the contentions raised and judgments relied by the parties:

"When ED files a report and the investigating agency, which is obliged to file an FIR, if not prima facie satisfied on the materials, they have the option to go for a preliminary inquiry. That is the law. What is the doubt about it? But that has to be decided very simply by analysing the facts of each case. Case-to-case reference may decide whether a particular case warrants a preliminary enquiry or without a preliminary enquiry, an FIR to be registered directly. I have answered in a way. The legal position is this. Then we will look into the contents of the [report and also the contentions raised from all of you, to decide upon whether the present preliminary inquiry is allowed to go on, or else the other contentions to be considered for disallowing the prayer."

According to the plea, on August 19, the ED issued a press release stating that it had collected evidence regarding hawala transactions to the tune of crores in the case and thereby, offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act have also been committed by the accused persons.

It is further stated that on September 7, the ED sent a letter to the Kerala Director General of Police to register an FIR under the PC Act against Pinarayi, Veena and Riyas. However, the Home Secretary issued an order to the State Police Chief to entrust the case to Crime Branch and to constitute a Special Investigation Team for preliminary enquiry and accordingly, an order was passed by the Police Chief, it is stated.

The plea prays for consideration of his complaints before the Police Chief and Vigilance director within a timeframe fixed by the Court. There is also a prayer to direct transferring of the case to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau for registering an FIR incorporating PC Act offences.

On Saturday, the Court had observed that there was a pertinent legal question to be considered: whether the State police is bound to register an FIR without preliminary enquiry when an information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA [Prevention of Money Laundering Act] Act has been passed by the Enforcement Directorate.

Today, the ED as well as the petitioner argued that there was no scope for preliminary enquiry in the facts of the present case and the State police ought to have registered an FIR at once. The petitioner also pointed out that in the present case, a Special Investigation Team was formed without a member of a Vigilance department and that cannot be done without a Cabinet decision. He contended that this was the law as provided for by a government order.

Hearing the argument, Justice Badharudeen clarified:

"You are pointing this out because they have formed an SIT? Is there any prohibition for forming an SIT even in the presence of a vigilance dept?...So, according to you, formation of an SIT without a Cabinet decision is also wrong."

The AG argued that if the investigation agency feels that some verification is required, a preliminary enquiry is desirable. He also pointed out that ED is not an investigating agency like police but is only an information collecting agency.

Not fully agreeing, the Court orally said:

"Then how can they file a report for PMLA Act offences? That way, ED is also investigating agency...We cannot say that they are not at all investigating agency. If so, what they have been doing, and the registration of cognizance for PMLA offences on their volition deemed to be illegal per se. Cannot be done...if so, their status as investigating officers cannot be said to be an absolute no. Maybe, their powers maybe limited. Because, If they don't have a power to go for a wider investigation, as provided u/S 165 CrPC and their power is under the PMLA alone. That way, it may be correct."

The AG also contended that the present plea is premature and it is not maintainable.

The petition is moved by Advocates V. Sethunath, Thomas Abraham and Shamnas S.

Case No: WP(Crl.) 1476/ 2026

Case Title: Adv. K.M. Shajahan v. State of Kerala and Ors.