CMRL payoff case: Kerala HC orders registration of FIR against Pinarayi Vijayan, kin based on ED report

The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 9, 2026) directed that an FIR be registered, incorporating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), against Keralam Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena and his son-in-law P.A. Mohamed Riyas in the CMRL-Exalogic payoff case.

The petitioner, K.M. Shajahan, an advocate, had earlier approached the State Police Chief and the Director of Vigilance, seeking registration of an FIR and an investigation into allegations of disproportionate assets and intentional enrichment by Mr. Vijayan, abetment under the PCA and alleged money laundering by Ms. Veena and Mr. Riyas.

On Friday, a Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen allowed the writ petition and directed the registration of an FIR in the case. The court further directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to forward all necessary documents to the Director of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), who is free to call for any other documents required for the probe after registering an FIR.

The Advocate General (AG), however, argued that merely upon receipt of information under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA), the State government was not duty-bound to register an FIR and has the option of conducting a preliminary inquiry to ascertain the truth of the allegations contained in the information forwarded by the ED.

According to Friday’s order, the information furnished by the ED, when considered in its entirety, contains sufficient primary materials disclosing the commission of cognizable offences under the PCA by the persons referred to in the information. The nature and extent of the materials furnished exceed what would ordinarily be required for registering an FIR. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no further inquiry is required, and the information disclosed under Section 66(2) of the PMLA makes it obligatory for the State Police to register an FIR.

The court observed that the offences disclosed in the information forwarded by the ED under Section 66(2) of the PMLA indicate the commission of offences under the PCA by the suspected persons. In such a case, the competent authority to investigate the matter is the Department of Vigilance, which is specifically empowered to do so. Though the government may constitute a special investigation team (SIT) to investigate a particular matter, this must be done in accordance with the statutory scheme under Section 21 of the Kerala Police Act, the court added.

Earlier this month, the High Court had reviewed the information passed on by the ED to the State Police Chief and observed orally that the question of whether to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR would have to be analysed on a “case-to-case basis”. The court had also said that the general principle was that a report or information provided by the ED under the Prevention of Corruption Act was “a substitute” for a preliminary inquiry, which is usually conducted to ascertain whether there was any truth in the allegations.

It also asked why the ED had not challenged the State police’s inaction in registering an FIR. The court further enquired whether the case diary was the sole evidence submitted and whether witness statements had been furnished.

The ED responded that the statements would also be produced if required. Previously, the ED had explained in court that, while investigating offences allegedly committed by Ms. Veena under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and involving her now-defunct company, Exalogic Solutions, the agency had received information regarding a predicate offence that would fall under the purview of the State police. Accordingly, the ED shared the information with the State Police Chief.

The ED and the petitioner had contended that there was no scope for a preliminary inquiry into the facts of the case and that the State police ought to have registered an FIR immediately. The ED submitted that it had come across material relating to certain transactions that had to be investigated by the police or the Vigilance, as they constituted predicate offences.