CMRL-Exalogic case: Kerala High Court orders FIR against ex-CM Pinarayi Vijayan based on ED's recommendation

The Kerala High Court on Friday a directed the Director of the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register a first information report (FIR) against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and others in connection with the CMRL-Exalogic case [Adv KM Shajahan v State of Kerala & ors].

Justice A Badharudeen allowed the petition filed by advocate KM Shajahan who was the Additional Private Secretary to the the late former CM VS Achuthanandan when he served as the Leader of Opposition in the State Assembly.

The Court set aside the State government's decision to form a Special Investigation Team without registering an FIR. The Court said 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, directed the VACB Director to register an FIR based on the information furnished by ED under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for the offences disclosed in the said communication against all suspected persons.

"It is specifically ordered that the DGP or the head of the Special Investigation Team, having custody of the information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA shall hand over the same to the [VACB Director], forthwith, and the [VACB Director] shall obtain the same for the purpose of registering FIR, without fail and proceed further, in accordance with law. In this connection, the E.D. is directed to forward all necessary documents to the [VACB Director]," the Court said in its order.

Citing several precedents, the Court explained its decision stating,

"In a nutshell, when an information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA is forwarded for registering FIR based on the inputs in the investigation initiated by the E.D. disclosing commission of a scheduled offence or offences for which State Police is only having competence to register FIR, it is obligatory (must do) for the State Police to register FIR for the offences disclosed in the information passed under Section 66(2) of the PMLA."

The Court added that while this does not exempt the notified agency from undertaking a preliminary independent inquiry, in this case, the information forwarded by the ED to the State Police Chief contains detailed information on the alleged corporate fraud committed by CMRL and Exalogic. Therefore, no further enquiry is necessary to register and FIR, the Court held.

"When the information furnished by the Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin Zonal Office, under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, vide communication dated 07.09.2026, bearing F.No. ECIR/KCZO/11/2024, is considered in its entirety, it contains sufficient primary materials disclosing, the commission of cognizable offences under the PC Act by the persons referred to in the information....Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, no further enquiry is required in the instant case and the matters disclosed in the information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA make it obligatory for the State Police to register the FIR, rulling out the scope of any other enquiry," the Court held.

The CMRL-Exalogic case involves allegations of corruption against former CM Vijayan and his daughter Veena Thaikkandiyil.

The petition before the High Court was filed by advocate KM Shajahan questioning the non-registration of an FIR in the matter.

The plea is tied to material allegedly shared by the ED with the Kerala police, 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.

However, instead of registering an FIR, the State constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by Crime Branch Additional Director General of Police H Venkatesh, to conduct a preliminary enquiry.

The petitioner questioned this move. His plea stated that the ED had unearthed material indicating the possible commission of offences under the PC Act and PMLA against Vijayan, his daughter, her husband, and former Minister PA Muhammed Riyas.

Shajahan, therefore, sought the registration of an FIR against those allegedly involved in the case, and the transfer of the investigation to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB).

He also sought directions to the State Police and the Vigilance Director to act on complaints submitted by him in the matter on September 22.

During hearings before the High Court, the ED supported Shajahan's plea for the registration of an FIR in the case.

ED's standing counsel, Jaishankar V Nair, submitted that the ED had come across several transactions that required a probe by the State Police or another competent agency.

Advocate General Jaju Babu, appearing for the State, meanwhile raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. He argued that although the petitioner portrayed the proceeding as being in public interest, it had been filed as a private writ petition.

AG Babu also maintained that receipt of information from ED did not take away the State agency's power to independently examine whether the materials disclosed any offence warranting the registration of an FIR.

However, the Court found that Shajahan had the locus standi to file the petition as a citizen of India and as a whistle-blower.

The petitioner was represented by advocates V Sethunath, Thomas Abraham, and Shamnas S.

[Read Judgment]