Former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena Thaikkandiyil and her husband, Mohammed Riyas, have challenged a Kerala High Court order directing the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) in the CMRL-Exalogic case. The appeals question the legality of the direction issued by a single-judge Bench and seek relief against the order.
Background
On October 9, Justice A. Badharudeen directed the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register an FIR against Vijayan, Veena, Riyas and others over suspected corruption linked to financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, a company associated with Veena.
The order followed information shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The State had constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a preliminary inquiry instead of registering an FIR. The single judge set aside that decision and directed the VACB to register the case.
The appellants contend that they were not parties to the original proceedings and were not heard before the direction affecting them was issued. They argue that the order violates the principles of natural justice.
Vijayan has disputed the existence of material connecting him to the alleged transactions. His appeal argues that the ED's communication relies on statements concerning his daughter and an interpretation of her public relations activities, without a money trail or other material directly linking him to the alleged payments.
The appeals also question whether the ED's communication independently establishes grounds for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Veena has further relied on the ongoing Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) probe, arguing that the statutory framework governing that investigation restricts parallel investigations into the same transactions.
The appellants have also challenged the single judge's findings on the State's decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry and the registration of an FIR.
The appeals challenge the October 9 order and seek judicial intervention against the direction to register an FIR. The allegations and grounds raised by the appellants remain subject to judicial consideration.
