CMRL-Exalogic payoff case: Kerala HC reserves order on plea seeking FIR against Pinarayi, daughter Veena, Riyas

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The court states that the general principle was that a report or information provided by the ED under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) was “a substitute” for preliminary inquiry. | Photo Credit: R K Nithin

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (September 30, 2026) reserved its verdict in a petition seeking the registration of an FIR and investigation by the State Police Chief into the predicate offence found during an Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe in the CMRL-Exalogic payoff case. 

Justice A. Badharudeen reviewed the information passed by the ED to the State Police Chief and observed orally that the question of whether to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR would have to be analysed on “a case-to-case basis.”

The court stated that the general principle was that a report or information provided by the ED under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) was “a substitute” for preliminary inquiry, which is usually used to find if there was any truth in the allegations.

The court further enquired why the ED had not challenged the State police’s inaction in registering an FIR. It further inquired whether the case diary was the sole evidence submitted and if witness statements had been furnished.

The ED responded that the statements would also be produced if required.

Previously, the ED had explained in court that, while investigating the offences under the PMLA Act allegedly committed by T. Veena, daughter of Keralam Opposition Leader Pinarayi Vijayan and her now-defunct company Exalogic, the agency received information regarding a predicate offence, which would fall under the purview of the State police. Accordingly, the ED shared the information with the State Police Chief.

Keralam Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala had recently said an FIR could not be lodged against Mr. Vijayan, Ms. Veena and her husband P.A. Mohamed Riyas merely based on a proposal from the ED in the case.

Mr. Chennithala said the State was not opposed to registering an FIR in the case. However, a preliminary inquiry would be conducted first based on the Advocate General’s advice, as “certain things needed further clarity.”

The petitioner, lawyer K.M. Shajahan, had reportedly approached the State Police Chief and the Director of Vigilance earlier, seeking registration of an FIR and investigation into allegations of disproportionate assets, intentional enrichment of Mr. Vijayan and abetment under the PCA and alleged money laundering by Ms. Veena and Mr. Riyas.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.