The Kerala High Court has reserved its order on a plea to grant leave to appeal against a single Bench directive to register a first information report (FIR) against the accused, including former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, in the CMRL-Exalogic pay-off case.
The Division Bench of Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John held that it would not stay the operation of the impugned judgment before deciding whether to allow the plea to appeal against the order. The Division Bench stated that the court must follow procedure before considering a stay.
Representing the accused, Mr. Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, and son-in-law and former Minister P.A. Mohammed Riyas, senior lawyers Gopalakrishna Kurup, S. Sreekumar, and T. A. Shaji argued that they were not given an opportunity to be heard, even though the judgment directly affected them.
The accused sought a stay on the judgment’s operation, stating that any delay would render the appeals pointless. They contended that through the directive to register the FIR, the single judge foreclosed the options available to the accused. Otherwise, if a Station House Officer or the State had registered the FIR, the accused could have challenged it before the court.
The court orally enquired whether an accused is generally heard while registering an FIR in an alleged offence. The accused then contended that they were only challenging the court order directing the registration of an FIR without hearing the affected parties.
Advocate General K. Jaju Babu contended that the State was conducting a preliminary inquiry based on information given by the Enforcement Directorate against the accused, but the single judge set it aside while directing the registration of an FIR. The State contended that, through the preliminary inquiry, it wanted to confirm whether a cognisable offence was made out from the information passed by the ED.
The State further contended that the writ petition filed before the single judge should have been filed as a PIL to be considered by the appropriate forum. The State stood by its decision to ensure a fair investigation and asserted that it possessed the discretion whether to register an FIR or conduct a preliminary inquiry.
Before the single Bench, the ED had informed that it found a predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, while it was investigating the CMRL-Exalogic case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. As required by law, the ED had passed this information to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau for registration of FIR and further investigation.
Following the single judge’s order, the VACB registered two cases based on the allegations surrounding the financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Ms. Veena’s now-defunct company Exalogic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., naming Mr. Vijayan, Ms. Veena and Mr. Riyas as accused among others.
Mr. Vijayan was accused of abuse of power, amassing disproportionate wealth, and criminal conspiracy through his daughter and her company from 2016 to 2020. The accused were charged with offences under the PC Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Indian Penal Code.
Published - October 13, 2026 08:22 pm IST