The Supreme Court Today (April 30) stayed the FIR against Kerala CM’s secretary K.M. Abraham amid CBI probe orders by the High Court. Allegations claim he owns assets far beyond his known income, including crores worth of properties.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today stopped the police case (FIR) registered against K.M. Abraham, who is the Chief Principal Secretary to Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. This action comes after the Kerala High Court earlier ordered the CBI to investigate claims that Abraham collected wealth much bigger than what his legal income allows.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Manmohan also sent a notice to the CBI regarding Abraham’s petition, where he is challenging the Kerala High Court’s order.
In the Supreme Court hearing, Senior Advocate R. Basant spoke for K.M. Abraham, while Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta represented the State of Kerala. The court carefully looked at earlier important judgments like Anil Kumar and Ors. V M. K. Aiyappa (2013) and L Narayana Swamy v State of Karnataka (2016), which Abraham referred to in his arguments.
The Supreme Court bench pointed out that according to these judgments,
“The Magistrate cannot direct registration of an FIR under Section 156 CrPC without prior sanction”.
Earlier, on April 11, 2025, the Kerala High Court had cancelled a 2017 decision by a Special Judge who had rejected a complaint against retired IAS officer K.M. Abraham. The High Court then ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR and properly look into the charges that Abraham gathered wealth beyond his known income.
The case started when an activist named Jomon Puthenpurackal filed a petition. He alleged that Abraham, besides his salary and known income, had acquired expensive assets like a flat worth Rs 3 crore in Mumbai, another flat worth Rs 1 crore in Thiruvananthapuram, and even one-third ownership in a shopping complex valued at Rs 8 crore in Kollam.
While passing the order, Justice K. Babu of the Kerala High Court criticized the way the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) handled the case. He noted that the VACB had wrongly left out the period during which the Kollam shopping complex was built while checking Abraham’s financial record.
Justice Babu remarked,
“There is no general rule or criterion, valid for all cases, regarding the choice of the period for which accounts are taken. It shall be determined based on the allegations. A period must be taken so as to obtain a true and comprehensive picture of the known sources of income, pecuniary resources, and property in possession of the public servant, which is alleged to be disproportionate. The period selected has a direct bearing on the acquisitive activities of the public servant in amassing wealth. The prosecution cannot exclude the period during which the public servant allegedly acquired a substantial asset. Such a situation would amount to ignoring or avoiding a true picture of the property in possession of the public servant.”
Further, the Court observed that there was enough evidence available which called for an investigation by an independent body like the CBI.
The court also pointed out,
“The funds stated to have been transferred by his brothers would not account for the entire expenditure of Rs.2.05 Crores”.
It further said that
“The exclusion of the period… relying on the recitals in the MOU, which go against the powers-of-attorney… persuade this Court to infer that the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer is doubtful.”
The High Court finally added,
“This does not instil confidence to conclude that the Enquiry Officer made an independent and impartial enquiry”.
Because of these findings, the Kerala High Court had ordered the CBI to start a proper and fair investigation.
Now, with the Supreme Court’s stay on the FIR, the investigation has been paused until further orders. The case continues to attract public attention as it involves a top official close to Kerala’s Chief Minister.
CASE TITLE:
K.M. Abraham v. Jomon Puthenpurackal & Ors.
(SLP (Crl.) No. 6517/2025).
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjiv Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
