Kerala High Court Rejects Former CM Pinarayi Vijayan's Plea To Challenge Vigilance FIR Direction In CMRL-Exalogic Case
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 15) refused to grant permission to former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, daughter Veena T. and son-in-law/ex-Minister Muhammed Riyas to appeal against the Single Bench order directing Vigilance FIR against them in CMRL-Exalogic pay off case. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 580]
The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John today dismissed the leave petitions filed by the three seeking permission to appeal against the order. It observed:
"it is clear that the impugned judgment has not affected the right of the applicants to pursue their constitutional or statutory remedy against the registration of the FIR and in such a situation, all the applications seeking leave to appeal are dismissed...It is well settled that so long as cognizance of an offence is not taken, a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution to quash the FIR can be filed and after cognizance, the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS can also be invoked to quash the proceedings."
On Tuesday, the Court had heard detailed arguments by Senior Advocates K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, S. Sreekumar, T.A. Shaji and Raman B. Pillai for the appellants, Advocate General K. Jaju Babu for State, ASGI P. Sreekumar for the Enforcement Directorate and Advocate V. Sethunath for the writ petitioner before reserving its verdict in the applications seeking leave to appeal.
Last Friday, a Single Bench had directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register an FIR incorporating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena as well as her husband/ex-Minister Mohammed Riyas based on the information passed by the Directorate of Enforcement.
The Single Bench had found that the government's decision to conduct preliminary enquiry without registration of FIR is illegal considering the facts of the case. It had also set aside the State's order forming Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct preliminary enquiry.
Aggrieved by the direction, the three have moved separate appeals before the Division Bench. It is contended that they were not heard by the Single Bench before passing an order that directly affects them, violating principles of natural justice.
After hearing the rival submissions, the Division Bench raised three points for consideration:
"1. Whether the applicants established a prima facie case to show that the judgment under challenge has affected their legal right ?
2. Whether the accused in a corruption case has a legal right to be heard before registering the FIR?
3. Whether the accused in a corruption case can demand a preliminary inquiry before registering FIR in a corruption case?"
The Court then referred to various precedents, including State of Karnataka v. T. N. Sudhakar Reddy, State of Karnataka v. Channakeshava H.D., Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, and Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Ors.
It agreed with the Single Bench that when sufficient material disclosing commission of cognizable offences are furnished along with the information under Section 66(2) of the PML Act, 2002, there is no necessity for conducting a preliminary inquiry and that the accused in a corruption case has no legal right to be heard before registering the FIR.
It further added that the accused persons have no right to demand for a preliminary inquiry before registration of an FIR in a corruption case.
Thus, the Court dismissed the leave petitions as well as the appeals.
Counsel for the appellants: S. Sreekumar (Sr.), T.A. Shaji (Sr.), K. Gopalakrishna Kurup (Sr.), Raman B. Pillai (Sr.), Ameen Hassan K., Lisna Sherin T.T., Ummul Fadla T., Abdul Fathah, Rajesh A., Muneer Ahmed, Gilbert George Corrreya, K.K. Ravindranath, P. Narayanan, Manu V., Thanushree Damodaran, Abhijith M.A. and Clarina Christopher P.
Counsel for the respondents: K. Jaju Babu - AG, P. Sreekumar - ASGI, V. Sethunath