Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena and Kerala HC 
News

CMRL-Exalogic case: Former CM Pinarayi Vijayan, daughter Veena challenge Kerala HC order directing FIR

Mohammad Riyas (Veena's husband, Vijayan's son-in-law) has also filed a similar appeal.

Praisy Thomas

Former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena Thaikkandiyil and her husband Mohammed Riyas, have filed appeals before the Kerala High Court challenging a single-judge order directing the registration of a first information report (FIR) against them in the CMRL-Exalogic case [Pinarayi Vijayan v Adv KM Shajahan & ors].

The matter is likely to be listed before a Bench of Justice K Natarajan and Justice Johnson John tomorrow.

Justice K Natarajan and Justice Johnson John

Vijayan, Veena and Riyas have filed separate appeals in the matter. The three appeals challenge an October 9 judgment passed by Justice A Badharudeen.

The single judge had directed the State's Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register an FIR against Vijayan, Veena, Riyas and others in suspected of corruption in the CMRL-Exalogic case.

Justice Badharudeen had directed the VACB Director to register an FIR based on the information furnished by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Following the ED's investigation into financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, a company owned by Veena Thaikkandiyil, the ED shared certain allegedly incriminating information with the Kerala Police.

However, instead of registering an FIR, the State constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a preliminary enquiry.

A petition questioning this move was filed before the High Court by a lawyer named KM Shajahan. He sought the registration of an FIR against those allegedly involved in the case and the transfer of the probe to the VACB.

On October 9, a single-judge Bench of the Court allowed the petition. The single-judge set aside the State government's decision to form an SIT without registering an FIR. The Court reasoned that the alleged offences fall under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), making the VACB the competent authority to investigate the matter. It, therefore, ordered the VACB to register an FIR.

Vijayan, Veena and Riyas have challenged this ruling in their appeals before the High Court's Division Bench. They contend that they were neither made parties to the proceedings before the single judge Bench nor heard before the direction to register an FIR against them was issued.

The appeals also challenge the single judge's finding that the information forwarded by the ED to the State Police disclosed cognizable offences under the PC Act.

Vijayan's appeal says that there is nothing to connect him to the alleged crime.

"The information shared by the ED relies solely on statements concerning the Appellant’s daughter and an unsubstantiated interpretation of her public relations avenues asbribe payments made on his behalf. There is no moneytrail, communication, or other material connecting the Appellant to the alleged bribes, nor any specific act or criminal intent attributable to him," his appeal says.

Riyas' appeal too says that the ED's material did not show any link between the allegedly uncounted money and him to attract offences under the PC Act against him.

He has also argued that the single judge could not have ordered the registration of an FIR without allowing the State investigating agency to independently assess the ED's material and arrive at its own findings.

Veena's appeal too argues that the ED cannot dictate the manner in which the police must register an FIR.

Veena has further pointed out that there is already a Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) probe underway. Another investigating agency cannot investigate the same offences once the matter has been assigned to the SFIO, her appeal says.

Vijayan, meanwhile, has highlighted that this SFIO complaint (which names 13 persons, including Veena and Exalogic Solutions) does not name him as an accused.

Former CM and his daughter have moved their appeals through advocates Gilbert George Correya, KK Ravindranath, P Narayanan, Manu V, Thanushree Damodaran, Abhijith MA and Clarina Christopher P.

The appeal for Riyas has been moved by advocates Ameen Hassan K, Lisna Sherin TT, Ummul Fadla T, Abdul Fathah Rajesh A and Muneer Ahmed.

Warn public about fake institutions: Supreme Court to UGC after finding fake medical college run by illiterate tea-seller

Can a victim of crime approach the High Court seeking speedy trial? Supreme Court answers

Rahul Gandhi moves Supreme Court challenging SIR, voter deletions; seeks removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar

Sarvaank Associates launches Dispute Resolution, Regulatory & Enforcement Wing practice

Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas hires four Partners in General Corporate Practice

SCROLL FOR NEXT