Kerala High Court stays FIRs against Pinarayi Vijayan and family in CMRL case

Kerala High Court stayed the VACB FIRs and investigation against Pinarayi Vijayan and his family. The relief remains temporary as the Division Bench examines their appeals.

In Short

• Appeals allege appellants were not heard before the ex parte direction
• Lawyers said ED material disclosed no cognisable corruption offence whatsoever
• Existing transactions are already under Serious Fraud Investigation Office scrutiny

The Kerala High Court on Monday stayed an order directing the registration of a first information report against former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his family members in the alleged CMRL bribery case, news agency Press Trust of India reported.

A Division Bench of Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John also put on hold the FIRs registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and its investigation until further orders. The court admitted the appeals filed by Vijayan and others against the earlier order and said the matter required detailed consideration. It will be heard after four weeks.

Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and her husband P A Mohamed Riyas had challenged the October 9 order of a single judge directing the VACB to register an FIR against them on the basis of a report submitted by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the alleged bribery case involving Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd.

Senior advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Veena and Riyas, argued that the information provided by the ED did not disclose a cognisable offence or an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

“We were not heard. If we were heard, we would have shown no cognisable offence is made out. But the single judge proceeded ex parte behind our back,” he said, according to PTI.

Hariharan also argued that the petitioner who sought the registration of an FIR should have pursued his complaint against Vijayan and others before the Sessions Court. “If he had done so, then the Sessions Court would have called us to seek our opinion. To avoid that, he moved a writ petition in the High Court,” he said.

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Vijayan, said an FIR could not be registered merely because the ED claimed that an offence had been committed.

Hariharan and Luthra argued that the transactions between Veena and CMRL were already being investigated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. They said no other agency, including the ED, could investigate the same issue.

Luthra also said the High Court should have heard Vijayan and the others before directing the registration of an FIR on a petition filed by a third party. He argued that the SFIO should also have been heard and claimed that the single judge had not been informed about its ongoing investigation.

He further claimed that the matter was in the nature of a public interest litigation and should have been placed before the Bench authorised to hear such cases. Luthra said the Supreme Court had directed the appellants to proceed with their appeals and requested the High Court to admit them. He also sought a stay on the single judge's order or an extension of the interim relief granted by the Supreme Court.

Advocate General Jaju Babu, representing the Kerala government, said the state did not agree with the single judge's order but had complied with it by registering an FIR and beginning an investigation.

The ED opposed the appeals. It argued that the Supreme Court had not stayed either the FIR registered by the VACB on the single judge's direction or the case registered by the central agency. It said no interim stay should therefore be granted on the October 9 order.

According to PTI, the ED wrote to the state police last month seeking an FIR against Vijayan and his family on the basis of evidence gathered during its investigation into alleged payments by CMRL and searches conducted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The state police instead decided to conduct a preliminary inquiry based on the ED's report.

Two FIRs were subsequently registered in compliance with the High Court's October 9 order. The ED then began separate investigations under the anti-money laundering law against Vijayan and his family.

On October 15, the High Court rejected applications by Vijayan, Veena and Riyas seeking permission to appeal against the single judge's order. They then moved the Supreme Court, which on October 21 stayed the VACB investigation for a week and directed them to pursue an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Supreme Court did not stay the ED investigation.

The VACB FIR alleges that Vijayan abused his official position and used corrupt and illegal means to secure financial benefits for himself, his daughter and her company. It further alleges that Veena and her now-defunct company, Exalogic Solutions, received Rs 3.28 crore from CMRL and Empower India Capital Investments Pvt Ltd through their bank accounts under the guise of information technology consultancy and marketing services.

The High Court has now stayed the single judge's order, the VACB FIRs and the agency's investigation while it considers the appeals filed by Vijayan, Veena and Riyas. The case will next be heard after four weeks.

- Ends