The Kerala High Court on October 9, directed the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register a First Information Report (FIR) against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena Thaikkandiyil and son-in-law Mohammed Riyas in connection with the CMRL-Exalogic case. Justice A. Badharudeen allowed a petition filed by advocate K.M. Shajahan challenging the State government's decision to order a preliminary inquiry without registering an FIR.
The Court held that the information forwarded by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) disclosed sufficient material concerning alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and that a further preliminary inquiry was not required before registering the FIR in the circumstances of the case.
Background
The case concerns financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, a company associated with Veena Thaikkandiyil. According to the allegations referred to in the petition, CMRL made payments totalling approximately ₹1.72 crore to Exalogic between 2017 and 2020, allegedly without corresponding services being provided.
During its investigation, the ED shared information with the Kerala Police under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The communication, dated September 7, 2026, reportedly contained material warranting investigation into possible offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Instead of registering an FIR, the State government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the Crime Branch to conduct a preliminary inquiry. Shajahan approached the High Court, arguing that the authorities were required to register an FIR on the basis of the information supplied by the ED and that the matter should be handled by the VACB.
The ED also supported the registration of an FIR, submitting that the transactions identified during its investigation required examination by the competent State agency. The State, however, questioned the maintainability of the petition and maintained that the police could independently assess whether the information warranted registration of an FIR.
The Court examined whether the State Police could conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR when information concerning a possible scheduled offence had been forwarded under Section 66(2) of the PMLA.
Explaining the legal position, the Court observed:
"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 clarified that the requirement to register an FIR did not generally prevent an agency from undertaking an independent preliminary inquiry where legally warranted. However, it found that the material communicated by the ED in the present case contained sufficient initial information concerning alleged cognizable offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court further observed that the information had to be considered in its entirety and that the material supplied in this case did not call for an additional preliminary inquiry before registration of the FIR.
It also accepted Shajahan's standing to maintain the petition, recognising his right to approach the Court as a citizen and whistle-blower.
Allowing the writ petition, the Kerala High Court directed the Director of the VACB to obtain the information supplied under Section 66(2) of the PMLA and register an FIR for the offences disclosed against the suspected persons.
The Court directed the Director General of Police or the head of the SIT to hand over the relevant information to the VACB Director without delay and directed the ED to forward the necessary documents to the competent authority.
The Court ordered the VACB to proceed further in accordance with law.
Case Details
- Case Title: Adv. K.M. Shajahan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
- Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) No. 1476 of 2026
- Judge: Justice A. Badharudeen
- Decision Date: October 9, 2026
