One operative line from the Bench and no reasons yet: the Kerala High Court Orders FIR Against Ex-CM Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter Veena in the CMRL-Exalogic case, on information the Enforcement Directorate passed to the State Police.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kochi: Allowing a writ petition that sought immediate registration of a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Kerala High Court on Friday directed the State Police to register an FIR against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter Veena in the CMRL-Exalogic case. The direction rests on information shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) [K.M. Shajahan v. State of Kerala and Others].
The verdict was pronounced in open court on October 9, 2026 by Justice A. Badharudeen. The operative line reads: “Writ petition allowed. Direction to register FIR.” The detailed order is awaited, so the Court’s reasoning is not reported here.
The point the Court had to decide
The issue before the Court was whether the State Police must register an FIR without a preliminary enquiry once the ED passes on information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA. Registering an FIR is a step in the investigative process. It expresses no view on the merits of the allegations, and the presumption of innocence applies to every person named.
Where the ED and the State stood
Appearing for the ED, Jaishankar V. Nair said the agency had passed on information about offences found in its investigation. In his submission the transactions were predicate offences for the police or Vigilance to investigate, and the ED supported immediate registration of an FIR. He described the ED as an information-collecting agency, not a police-style investigating agency.
Advocate General K. Jaju Babu took the opposite line for the State. Where the investigating agency sees a need for verification, he submitted, a preliminary enquiry is desirable, and the petition was premature and not maintainable.
The petitioner’s argument
Advocate K.M. Shajahan, represented by V. Sethunath, Thomas Abraham and Shamnas S., contended that no preliminary enquiry was warranted and that the police ought to have registered an FIR at once. He pointed out that the Home Secretary had directed the Crime Branch to hold a preliminary enquiry through a Special Investigation Team, although the State’s own legal advisers had recommended immediate registration. He further contended that the team had been constituted without a member of the Vigilance department, which in his submission required a Cabinet decision.
The allegations behind the petition
The ED case alleges that between 2017 and 2020, Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd. (CMRL) made monthly payments totalling Rs 1.72 crore to Exalogic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., a firm associated with Veena, without any services being rendered. The ED issued a press release on August 19 saying it had collected evidence of hawala transactions worth crores. On September 7 it wrote to the State Police Chief seeking an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act against three persons, namely Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena and her husband Mohammed Riyas. These are allegations. They are untested, and the High Court has not recorded any finding on guilt in the portion of the order reported so far.
What the ruling bears on
The ruling touches on how State police treat information that the ED shares under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, and on whether a preliminary enquiry can stand in the way of registering a case when a scheduled offence is disclosed. The petitioner and the State advanced competing readings of the ED’s role, and the detailed order will show how the Court resolved them.
Case Title: K.M. Shajahan v. State of Kerala and Others [WP(Crl.) 1476/2026]
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
Date of Verdict: October 9, 2026
Appearances: Advocates V. Sethunath, Thomas Abraham and Shamnas S. for the petitioner; Advocate General K. Jaju Babu for the State; Jaishankar V. Nair for the Directorate of Enforcement