Kerala HC stays FIR order against Pinarayi Vijayan, family

In a relief to former Keralam Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his family, the Kerala High Court on Monday stayed a single judge's order directing the registration of an FIR against them in the alleged CMRL bribery case.

A Division Bench of Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John also kept in abeyance the FIRs registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) and the agency's investigation in the cases until further orders.

The bench admitted the appeals filed by Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and her husband P A Mohamed Riyas against the October 9 order, observing that the matter required detailed consideration. It listed the appeals for hearing after four weeks.

𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗜𝗥 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿

The appeals challenged the single judge's direction to the VACB to register an FIR against Vijayan and his family based on a report submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) concerning alleged payments by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL).

Senior advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Veena and Riyas, argued that the information provided by the ED did not disclose a cognisable offence or an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

"We (appellants) were not heard. If we were heard, we would have shown no cognizable offence is made out. But the single judge proceeded ex-parte behind our back," he submitted.

Hariharan also contended that the petitioner who sought registration of the FIR should have approached the Sessions Court instead of directly filing a writ petition before the High Court.

He argued that proceedings before the Sessions Court would have provided the appellants an opportunity to present their position before any direction was issued.

𝗦𝗙𝗜𝗢 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Vijayan, argued that an FIR could not be registered merely because the ED claimed that an offence had been committed.

Both Luthra and Hariharan submitted that transactions between Veena and CMRL were already being investigated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). They contended that no other agency, including the ED, could investigate the same matter.

Luthra further argued that the single judge should have heard Vijayan and the other affected parties before directing the registration of an FIR.

He also submitted that the SFIO should have been heard and claimed that the single judge had not been informed about its ongoing investigation.

According to Luthra, the matter was in the nature of a public interest litigation and should have been placed before the bench authorised to hear such petitions.

He also referred to the Supreme Court's direction permitting the appellants to pursue their appeals and sought a stay on the single judge's order or an extension of the interim protection granted by the apex court.

𝗘𝗗 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀

The state government, represented by Advocate General Jaju Babu, submitted that although it disagreed with the single judge's order, it had complied with the direction by registering FIRs and initiating an investigation.

The ED opposed the appeals, arguing that the Supreme Court had not stayed either the FIRs registered by the VACB or the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) recorded by the central agency.

The ED maintained that there was no justification for granting an interim stay on the October 9 direction.

Last month, the ED had written to the state police seeking registration of an FIR against Vijayan and his family based on evidence collected during its investigation into alleged payments by CMRL and searches conducted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Instead of immediately registering a case, the state police decided to conduct a preliminary inquiry based on the ED's report.

Following the High Court's October 9 order, two FIRs were registered, after which the ED initiated separate investigations under the PMLA against Vijayan and his family.

𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

On October 15, the High Court rejected applications filed by Vijayan, Veena and Riyas seeking permission to appeal against the single judge's order.

They subsequently approached the Supreme Court, which on October 21 stayed the VACB investigation for one week and directed them to pursue an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.

However, the apex court did not stay the ED investigation.

According to the VACB's FIR, Vijayan allegedly abused his official position and adopted corrupt and illegal means to secure illicit financial benefits for himself, his daughter and her company.

The FIR alleges that Veena and her now-defunct company, Exalogic Solutions, received Rs 3.28 crore from CMRL and Empower India Capital Investments Pvt Ltd through their respective bank accounts under the guise of information technology consultancy and marketing services.

The allegations remain under legal scrutiny, with the Division Bench's interim order putting the VACB proceedings on hold pending further consideration of the appeals.