The Kerala High Court has directed Kerala’s vigilance director to register an FIR against former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T Veena and her husband, former minister P A Mohamed Riyas, in connection with the alleged CMRL-Exalogic pay-off case. The court also set aside the state police chief’s order creating a special investigation team for a preliminary inquiry.
Justice A Badharudeen issued the direction on Friday on a petition filed by K M Shajahan, a political activist from Thiruvananthapuram. The court ordered that the FIR be registered under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act without delay and directed the vigilance department to investigate the allegations and file its final report without undue delay.
The court’s order followed material communicated by the Enforcement Directorate to the state police chief under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The communication recommended registration of a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act in relation to alleged payments made by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd, or CMRL, to Exalogic Solutions, a company owned by Veena.
According to the report cited before the court, the Enforcement Directorate alleged that CMRL paid Rs 3.28 crore to Exalogic without receiving corresponding IT consultancy services. The company has since become defunct. The allegations concern whether the payments represented legitimate business transactions or were made without the services claimed in return. The court’s direction initiates a criminal investigation; it does not establish guilt against any of the persons named.
The state police chief had earlier constituted an SIT headed by Crime Branch SP Vikraman P to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the allegations. The Kerala government’s advocate general, K Jaju Babu, defended that process before the court, arguing that the state had a duty to balance the allegations with the rights of the suspected persons. The court, however, held that the material in the Enforcement Directorate’s communication was sufficient to register a case and that a preliminary SIT inquiry was unnecessary.
The court noted that the Enforcement Directorate’s communication referred to witness and suspect statements, along with other evidence beyond notebooks and diaries. It directed the Director General of Police and the head of the SIT to hand over the information received from the Enforcement Directorate to the vigilance director. The Enforcement Directorate was also directed to forward the necessary documents to the vigilance department, which must conduct the investigation through competent officers.
The allegations had been the subject of earlier legal proceedings. The Muvattupuzha special court and the Kerala High Court had previously dismissed petitions filed by the late Gireesh Babu of Kalamassery seeking an investigation. The High Court had also dismissed a petition by MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan, and the Supreme Court had upheld that decision.
The High Court said the earlier orders did not prevent a fresh complaint or prosecution if adequate new material became available. It observed that several materials referred to in the Enforcement Directorate’s communication had been collected after the earlier petitions were dismissed. The vigilance department’s FIR and subsequent investigation will now determine the next procedural steps in the case.
