Kochi, September 26, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Kerala High Court on Saturday raised questions over the state government’s decision to order a preliminary enquiry instead of registering an FIR following an Enforcement Directorate (ED) referral seeking investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the CMRL-Exalogic case.
The case involves former Kerala Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena Vijayan, and her husband and former minister P.A. Mohammed Riyas, who is currently an MLA.
Justice A. Badharudeen said the court would examine whether the State Police had the discretion to conduct a preliminary enquiry after receiving information from the ED under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), or whether it was required to register an FIR.
The court directed the ED to produce in a sealed cover its communication to the State Police Chief and posted the matter for detailed hearing on September 29.
The ED opposed the delay in registering an FIR, submitting that it had shared information regarding the alleged commission of offences with the State Police Chief during its investigation. The agency said the material disclosed offences requiring investigation by the State Police or the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.
The ED maintained that the State Police had no discretion to conduct a preliminary enquiry after receiving such information and that an FIR should be registered.
The Advocate General, K. Jaju Babu, defended the government’s decision, arguing that an FIR need not be registered immediately and that the police could first verify the information.
The petitioner, meanwhile, questioned the composition of the Crime Branch SIT constituted by the government, pointing out that it did not include the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau despite the ED alleging offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The state government had ordered a 30-day preliminary enquiry by a nine-member Crime Branch SIT after obtaining legal advice. The government has maintained that Supreme Court rulings permit a preliminary enquiry in appropriate cases before registration of an FIR.
The High Court also questioned the ED on the legal basis of its action in the absence of an FIR relating to a predicate offence. The ED said its investigation, which followed proceedings initiated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office over alleged Companies Act offences, had uncovered material indicating possible offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The issue assumes significance as the High Court had in June allowed the ED’s PMLA investigation into the CMRL-Exalogic transactions to continue, holding that the absence of an FIR concerning a scheduled offence did not prevent the agency from exercising its powers under the PMLA.
The latest hearing has brought the legality of the state government’s decision to conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering an FIR at the centre of the dispute.
FOLLOW NOW
