The Kerala High Court has directed the state 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 the alleged CMRL-Exalogic pay-off case.
Justice A Badharudeen ordered that the FIR be registered without delay under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court also set aside an order issued by the state police chief to constitute a special investigation team (SIT) for a preliminary inquiry into the allegations.
The order was passed on a petition filed by K M Shajahan, a political activist from Thiruvananthapuram, who had sought a direction to the vigilance director to register a case. The court directed the Director General of Police and the head of the SIT to hand over information and details received from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to the vigilance director.
The ED has also been directed to forward all necessary documents to the vigilance department. The court said the vigilance department should investigate the allegations through competent officers and file its final report without undue delay.
The case concerns an ED communication to the state police chief under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. In that communication, the ED recommended registration of a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The agency alleged that CMRL paid Rs 3.28 crore to Exalogic Solutions, a defunct company owned by Veena, without receiving corresponding information technology consultancy services.
Instead of registering an FIR, the Director General of Police had constituted an SIT headed by Crime Branch SP Vikraman P to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the allegations. The state’s Advocate General, K Jaju Babu, defended the preliminary inquiry before the court, arguing that the government had a duty to balance the allegations against the rights of the suspected persons.
The court held that a preliminary inquiry by the SIT was unnecessary because the ED’s communication contained sufficient material to register a case. It said the material included statements of witnesses and suspected persons, as well as evidence beyond notebooks and diaries.
The order also addressed earlier legal proceedings concerning the allegations. 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 filed by MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan, and the Supreme Court had upheld that decision.
The High Court noted that several materials referred to in the ED communication had been collected after the earlier petitions were dismissed. Those materials had led the ED to issue its communication under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act recommending registration of an FIR.
The court said rejection of an earlier complaint did not prevent a fresh complaint or the initiation of prosecution if adequate material became available later. It held that the earlier court orders would not prevent an effective investigation based on the material disclosed in the ED’s communication. The next formal step is the registration of the FIR by the vigilance department and the investigation directed by the court.
