High Cour stays FIR, probe against Pinarayi, kin in CMRL–Exalogic case
Division Bench puts investigation on hold until further orders; appeals admitted for detailed hearing
THE Kerala High Court on Monday stayed the operation of a single-judge order directing the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and further investigation in the controversial CMRL–Exalogic case involving former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T. and his son-in-law, former minister and MLA P. A. Mohammed Riyas.
A Division Bench comprising Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John admitted four appeals challenging the earlier judgment and ordered that both the judgment under challenge and further investigation remain stayed until further orders. The appeals have been posted for final hearing after three weeks.
The interim relief follows a Supreme Court intervention last week, when the apex court directed the High Court to examine the appeals on their merits and granted temporary protection against further investigation.
Background of the case
The case concerns alleged irregularities in financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, a company owned by Veena T.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had shared information relating to the transactions with the Kerala Police, raising allegations of possible corruption and questionable payments. The allegations include claims that Exalogic received payments from CMRL despite questions over the services reportedly provided. The allegations remain subject to judicial scrutiny and have not been established as proven offences against the individuals concerned.
The Kerala government initially constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the information received from the ED.
However, advocate K. M. Shajahan approached the High Court challenging the government's decision to proceed with a preliminary inquiry instead of registering an FIR.
On October 9, a single-judge Bench directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Vijayan, Veena, Riyas and others. The court also set aside the government's decision to constitute the SIT for the preliminary inquiry.
Legal challenge
Vijayan and the other affected parties challenged the order, arguing that they had not been heard before the direction to register an FIR was issued. Their counsel also questioned whether the material supplied by the ED established the ingredients of a cognisable offence and whether the state police were legally bound to register an FIR on the basis of the ED's communication.
The state government defended its initial decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry, maintaining that it had acted cautiously after receiving the information. The ED, meanwhile, argued that the police were required to register an FIR when information disclosed a cognisable offence.
The dispute also involves questions concerning the jurisdiction of the single-judge Bench, the legal standing of the petitioner and the relationship between the proposed state investigation and proceedings by other investigative agencies.
The Supreme Court subsequently directed the High Court's Division Bench to hear the appeals in detail, leading to Monday's proceedings.
What the latest order means
The High Court's decision is an interim procedural development. It suspends the effect of the single-judge judgment and further investigation for now, pending further orders and the final consideration of the appeals.
It does not amount to a final ruling on the allegations or an acquittal of the persons named in the case. The court will examine the legal and procedural issues raised by the parties before deciding the appeals.
The case has attracted considerable political attention in Kerala because it involves the former Chief Minister, members of his family and allegations arising from financial transactions between a private company and a state-based business.
The next stage of the proceedings is expected to focus on the legality of the direction to register the FIR, the material relied upon to initiate criminal proceedings and the respective powers of the state police and other investigative agencies.
