The Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen was hearing a 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.

After hearing the Advocate General, the petitioner's advocate and the standing counsel for the ED, the Court observed that there is a legal question to be decided in the case:

"A pertinent legal question arises for consideration as to whether an information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA [Prevention of Money Laundering Act] Act has been passed by the ED to the State police for registering FIR for the scheduled offences found on their investigation whether the State police has any other option other than to register the FIR or still, the State Police has the option to go for preliminary enquiry before registering an FIR. This question to be heard in detail. In the meantime, the learned SC for ED submitted that he will produced the information in a sealed cover to keep its secrecy by next posting."

The petitioner argued that the Vigilance is not included in the Special Investigation Team constituted to conduct the preliminary enquiry and the same was not correct since PC Act offences are there.

ED's counsel submitted that information was shared with the State Police Chief regarding commission of offences during the course of an investigation. He added that the ED came across materials showing certain transactions, which needed to be investigated, by the State Police or the Vigilance as the case maybe, as these were the predicate offences.

The Court then posed a question: "Whether in the instant case, without getting a predicate offence, you don't any power register any other crime? When proceeds of the predicate offence, then only PMLA would come. Do you feel that despite the registration of a crime for the predicate offences, ED has power to register any other crime?"

ED's counsel explained that SFIO had initially registered the crime against certain persons for Companies Act offences. During that investigation, which was stated as scheduled offence, ED found materials which showed that there are offences under PC Act, he submitted. A letter was issued to the Kerala police under S.66(2) of the PMLA by the ED at this time.

Again, the Court inquirued:

"Is there any legal position saying that when such a communication is given, whether the same must go for registration of FIR or that the authority to whom registration of crime has been asked for, have a discretion to decide upon a preliminary enquiry and then FIR? Do you have a case that when an information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA is forwarded, the only one option available to the agency to whom it is forwarded is to go for registration of FIR, and they don't have any discretion?"

ED's counsel submitted that there is no such discretion and that his view is that an FIR must be registered..

Advocate General K. Jaju Babu argued that the plea is in the nature of a public interest litigation but it was preferred with vested interest. He challenged the very maintainability of the plea. He further contended that if the ED is aggrieved by the government's move, it would have approached the Court itself, like it had on many other occasions.

The Court adjourned the matter after noting that there is a legal question to be decided in the case as to whether the state police has discretion to conduct preliminary enquiry without registering FIR on receipt of information from ED regarding materials of commission of Prevention of Corruption Act offences. It also directed the ED to produce the letter forwarded to the State Police Chief in a sealed cover in the meanwhile.

The case is posted to next week for hearing.

Background

In the ED case, the allegation is that from 2017 to 2020, CMRL (Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd.), a public company, made monthly payments totalling ₹1.72 crores to Exalogic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., associated with Veena Vijayan, without any actual services being rendered.

Earlier this year, the plea preferred by the accused CMRL officials to quash the ED case was dismissed by the Single Bench as well as the Division Bench.

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.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner preferred complaints before the Police Chief and Vigilance director to

In the plea, it is stated that the State government sought the legal opinions of the Advocate General, the Additional Advocate General as well as the Director General of Prosecution, all of whom recommended immediate registration of FIR but the government went ahead to order preliminary enquiry anyway.

The plea prays for consideration of his complaints 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.

The interim relief sought is for a direction to call for the entire files from the Home Department Secretary pending disposal of the plea.

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.