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 the alleged CMRL-Exalogic pay-off case. The court also set aside the state police chief’s order creating a special investigation team (SIT) for a preliminary inquiry.
Justice A Badharudeen issued the order on a petition filed by K M Shajahan, a political activist from Thiruvananthapuram, who sought directions for registration of a case. The court directed the DGP and the head of the SIT to hand over information received from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to the vigilance director without delay.
The vigilance department has also been directed to obtain all necessary documents from the ED, investigate the allegations through competent officers and file its final report without undue delay. The order shifts the matter from a preliminary police inquiry to a formal vigilance investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The case concerns an alleged payment of Rs 3.28 crore by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions, a company owned by Veena and now defunct. According to the material described in the court order and reported by the Times of India, the ED alleged that CMRL made the payments without receiving corresponding IT consultancy services. The allegations remain subject to investigation and judicial process.
The matter arose after the ED sent a communication to the state police chief under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, recommending registration of a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Instead of registering an FIR, the DGP had constituted an SIT headed by Crime Branch SP Vikraman P to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the allegations.
The court held that the ED’s communication contained sufficient material to justify registration of a case. This included statements from witnesses and suspected persons, as well as other evidence beyond notebooks and diaries. On that basis, it found a preliminary inquiry by the SIT unnecessary.
Advocate General K Jaju Babu defended the preliminary inquiry, arguing that the state government had a duty to balance the allegations with the rights of the suspected persons. He also referred to earlier petitions involving the same allegations that had been dismissed by the Muvattupuzha special court and the High Court. The Supreme Court had upheld the decision in a petition filed by MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan.
The High Court, however, noted that several materials cited in the ED’s communication had been collected after the earlier petitions were dismissed. These materials had led the ED to recommend registration of an FIR under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, the court said.
The court further observed that rejection of an earlier complaint does not prevent a fresh complaint or prosecution when adequate new material becomes available. It held that the previous orders would not prevent an effective investigation based on the material disclosed in the ED’s communication. The vigilance department is now responsible for taking the investigation forward and submitting its final report.
