CMRL-Exalogic Case: Kerala HC Reserves Order On Legality Of Preliminary Enquiry Without FIR Into Pinarayi Vijayan, Daughter

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday reserved its order on whether the State Government can conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering a First Information Report on the basis of material forwarded by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleging offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the CMRL-Exalogic case.

Justice A. Badharudeen was hearing a plea filed by Advocate K.M. Shajahan, seeking directions for registration of an FIR against former Chief Minister of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan, His Daughter Veena Vijayan, and Son in law and ex-minister Mohammed Riyas, along with a prayer to transfer the matter to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.

The case arises from the ED's investigation into alleged payments of around ₹1.72 crore made by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited to Exalogic Solutions Private Limited between 2017 and 2020, allegedly without corresponding services being rendered.

The ED had subsequently communicated to the State Police that its investigation had revealed material indicating commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The State Government, instead of immediately registering an FIR, directed the Crime Branch to conduct a preliminary enquiry and constituted a Special Investigation Team. Shajahan challenged this course of action.

During the hearing, the ED produced in a sealed cover its communication addressed to the State Police Chief.

Advocate General K. Jaju Babu opposed the plea, contending that the petitioner lacked locus standi and that the application was premature. He accordingly sought dismissal of the writ petition as not maintainable.

After hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, Justice Badharudeen observed

“ED files a report and the investigating agency who is obliged to file an FIR could not prima facie satisfy the materials, they have no option but to go for a preliminary enquiry. That is the law.” 

The Bench added that whether such a preliminary enquiry can continue in the present case has to be decided by analysing the facts and materials of the case.

“i'll look into the contents of the report and also the contentions raised from all of you to decide upon whether the present preliminary enquiry is allowed to go on…” the Court added

The matter was accordingly reserved for orders.

For Petitioner: Advocates V Sethunath, Thomas Abraham and Samnas S

For Respondent: Advocate General K. Jeju Babu and Advocate Jaishankar V Nair