Pinarayi Vijayan, kin move Kerala High Court in appeal against direction to register FIR in CMRL Exalogic payoff case

Pinarayi Vijayan, T. Veena, and P. A. Mohammad Riyas challenged the Single Bench direction before the Kerala High Court’s Division Bench. The earlier order required an FIR against them and other accused in the CMRL-Exalogic payoff case.

They asked the Division Bench to stay that judgment and every later step based on it. That specifically included registering the FIR and continuing related proceedings while their appeals remained pending.

The Division Bench, comprising Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John, admitted their petitions. The petitioners argued that they had not been given an opportunity to be heard and that the Single Bench wrongly found that no further enquiry was needed before registering an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

An FIR, or First Information Report, is the formal record made by police when information indicates that a cognisable offence may have occurred. It begins the investigation process. Registration does not itself prove guilt, but it gives investigators authority to examine evidence, question people, and take other lawful steps.

In this case, the Single Bench ordered an FIR against Vijayan and the other accused, including offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also directed the Enforcement Directorate to send relevant documents to the Director of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.

That made the order significant for the people named. A formal investigation could proceed against them based on the alleged predicate offence identified by the ED. They argued that they were not heard first and that a preliminary enquiry was still necessary. The Division Bench admitted their appeals and was asked to pause the consequences.

The allegations differ among the named accused. Pinarayi Vijayan is accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act of amassing disproportionate assets, intentional enrichment, and abetment. These allegations concern suspected unlawful financial benefit and assistance connected with the case.

T. Veena and P. A. Mohammad Riyas are accused of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The background is an allegation that Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited, a private mining company, made monthly payments to Veena through her now-defunct firm, Exalogic.

The payments allegedly ran from 2017 to 2021 and were made without Veena rendering any tangible service. The ED told the Single Bench that its PMLA investigation had uncovered a predicate offence. The court found prima facie material and ordered an FIR, while the accused argued that further enquiry and a chance to be heard were required.

The alleged payments covered a four-year period, from 2017 through 2021. According to the allegations described in the case, Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited made the payments monthly during that period.

The money was allegedly paid to T. Veena through Exalogic, a firm that is now defunct. The allegation is especially important because Veena was said to have received the payments without providing any tangible service to the private mining company.

Those alleged transactions form the factual background to the wider case. The article links them to accusations under the PMLA against Veena and P. A. Mohammad Riyas, and to allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Pinarayi Vijayan. The ED said its investigation found a predicate offence, prompting the Single Bench to order an FIR.

A predicate offence is an underlying criminal offence connected to property or money later alleged to be proceeds of crime. In a money-laundering case, investigators generally examine whether such unlawful gains existed and whether someone handled, concealed, or projected them as legitimate.

Here, the ED told the Single Bench that its investigation under the PMLA had found a predicate offence in the alleged payoff case. It submitted the material in a sealed cover. The article identifies the alleged payments through Exalogic and the related corruption allegations as the case’s background.

The Single Bench held that the ED’s material disclosed prima facie evidence of the alleged predicate offence. It therefore said no further enquiry was needed before registering an FIR and directed documents to the VACB. The accused dispute that conclusion and argue that a preliminary enquiry should have preceded registration.

The Single Bench’s reasoning turned on the evidence supplied by the Enforcement Directorate. During its investigation into the alleged payoff case under the PMLA, the ED told the court that it had found a predicate offence and submitted the required material in a sealed cover.

After examining that material, the Single Bench held that it disclosed prima facie evidence of the alleged offence. Prima facie means the material was sufficient at that stage to indicate that an offence may have occurred. The court therefore concluded that an FIR could be registered without another preliminary enquiry.

The court also directed the ED to forward all required documents to the Director of the VACB. The accused challenge this approach. They say the judgment directly concerned them, yet they were not given an opportunity to be heard, and they argue that further enquiry was necessary before invoking the Prevention of Corruption Act.

If the Division Bench stays the Single Bench’s order, the immediate effect could be to pause registration of the FIR and other steps flowing from that judgment. That would temporarily prevent the ordered process from moving ahead while the appeals are considered.

If the Division Bench allows the appeals, the Single Bench’s direction could be overturned or otherwise changed. The arguments before the Division Bench include the claim that the accused were denied an opportunity to be heard and that a preliminary enquiry was needed before an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

If the order remains in force, the VACB could receive the ED’s required documents and proceed with the investigation after FIR registration. The article does not report the Division Bench’s final decision. It only says the petitions were admitted and that the accused sought a stay pending disposal of their appeals.