Kerala HC stays FIRs, VACB probe against ex-CM Vijayan and kin in CMRL case

The Kerala High Court on Monday stayed a single judge's order directing the registration of an FIR against former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and her husband P A Mohamed Riyas in the alleged Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) bribery case.

A division bench of Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John also kept in abeyance the FIRs registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) and its investigation into the case until further orders.

Admitting appeals filed by Vijayan, Veena and Riyas against the single judge's October 9 order, the bench said the matter required detailed consideration and listed it for hearing after four weeks.

The single judge had directed the VACB to register an FIR based on a report submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with alleged payments made by CMRL to Veena and her company.

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

“We (appellants) were not heard. If we were heard, we would have shown no cognizable offence is made out. But the single judge proceeded ex-parte behind our back,” he submitted.

Hariharan also contended that the petitioner who sought the FIR should have approached the Sessions Court with his complaint rather than filing a writ petition before the High Court.

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

Both lawyers submitted that the transactions between Veena and CMRL were already being examined by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), arguing that another agency, including the ED, could not investigate the same issue.

Luthra further contended that the single judge should have heard Vijayan and the other appellants before directing the registration of an FIR. He also argued that the SFIO should have been heard and that the ongoing investigation had not been brought to the single judge's notice.

He said the matter was in the nature of a public interest litigation and should have been placed before the appropriate bench. Luthra sought a stay on the single judge's order or an extension of the interim relief granted by the Supreme Court.

The state government, represented by Advocate General Jaju Babu, told the court that although it disagreed with the single judge's order, it had complied with the direction by registering an FIR and initiating an investigation.

The ED opposed the appeals, arguing that the Supreme Court had not stayed either the VACB FIR or the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered by the central agency.

Last month, the ED had written to the state police seeking registration of an FIR against Vijayan and his family based on evidence gathered during its investigation into alleged payments by CMRL. The agency had also conducted searches under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The state police initially opted for a preliminary inquiry rather than registering a case. Following the High Court's October 9 direction, two FIRs were registered, after which the ED initiated separate investigations under the PMLA 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 subsequently approached the Supreme Court, which on October 21 stayed the VACB investigation for a week and directed them to pursue their appeals before a division bench of the High Court. The apex court did not stay the ED's investigation.

According to the VACB FIR, Vijayan allegedly abused his official position and used corrupt and illegal means to secure illicit pecuniary benefits for himself, his daughter and her company.

The FIR 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 respective bank accounts under the guise of information technology consultancy and marketing services.

The allegations are under investigation and have not been established in court.