कर्नाटक उच्च न्यायालय ने पिनरायी विजयन और परिवार पर CMRL‑Exalogic मामले में FIR पंजीकृत करने का निर्देश दिया

BREAKING| Kerala High Court Directs FIR Against Ex-CM Pinarayi Vijayan, Daughter Based On ED Information In CMRL-Exalogic Case

K. Salma Jennath

9 Oct 2026 10:23 AM IST

The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 9) directed for registration of 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 CMRL-Exalogic payoff case. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 567]

A detailed order is awaited.

Justice A. Badharudeen today pronounced in open court in the writ petition filed by KM Shahjahan:

"Writ petition allowed. Direction to register FIR."

Last week, the Court had heard detailed arguments raised by Advocate General K. Jaju Babu, Advocate V. Sethunath for the petitioner as well as Jaishankar V. Nair who appeared for the ED. It had then reserved its verdict.

The Court had observed that the legal question to be considered was whether the State police is bound to register an FIR without preliminary enquiry when an information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA [Prevention of Money Laundering Act] Act has been passed by the ED.

The ED as well as the petitioner had argued that there was no scope for preliminary enquiry in the facts of the present case and the State police ought to have registered an FIR at once. The petitioner also pointed out that in the present case, a Special Investigation Team was formed without a member of a Vigilance department and that cannot be done without a Cabinet decision. He contended that this was the law as provided for by a government order.

ED's counsel had also 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 AG argued that if the investigation agency feels that some verification is required, a preliminary enquiry is desirable. He also pointed out that ED is not an investigating agency like police but is only an information collecting agency. The AG also contended that the present plea is premature and it is not maintainable.

Factual 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 T, 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 present 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 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.

Counsel for the petitioner: V. Sethunath, Thomas Abraham and Shamnas S

Counsel for the respondents: K. Jaju Babu - Advocate General, Jaishankar V. Nair - Standing Counsel - Directorate of Enforcement

Powered by Nyaya 247 News