Kerala High Court Directs Police to Register Corruption FIR Against Pinarayi Vijayan, Daughter Veena and Riyas The Kerala High Court has ordered the registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, and MLA P.A. Mohamed Riyas over financial deals between CMRL and Exalogic. The Kerala High Court has directed the state authorities to register a formal first information report (FIR) and commence an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act against former Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, and her husband, MLA and former minister P.A. Mohamed Riyas. The order is based on evidence and findings shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Private Limited. Challenge Against Preliminary Inquiry Route Justice A. Badharudeen issued the directive while hearing a petition moved by advocate K.M. Shajahan. The petitioner had approached the court challenging the state police's decision to conduct only a preliminary inquiry rather than registering a regular criminal case based on the detailed report shared by the central agency. Shajahan argued before the bench that the material unearthed during the central agency's probe clearly pointed toward probable offenses punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The plea specifically urged the court to transfer the entire investigation to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB). Furthermore, the petitioner sought explicit directions compelling the state police chief and the vigilance director to act decisively on formal complaints submitted on September 22. State Government's Defense and SIT Formation Appearing on behalf of the state administration, Advocate General Jaju Babu raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition. Babu contended that the receipt of information from a central agency does not curtail the state agency's legal prerogative to independently examine the supplied material and determine whether it discloses a cognizable offense warranting an immediate FIR. Instead of registering a criminal case straight away, the state government had previously constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Additional Director General of Police (Crime Branch) H. Venkatesh to carry out a preliminary inquiry. However, the High Court declined to endorse this interim mechanism, instructing that a regular case be registered to investigate the allegations under corruption laws. Allegations of Rs 3.28 Crore Non-Service Payments The substantive controversy revolves around financial dealings between Kochi-based mineral-processing firm Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, an enterprise owned by Veena Vijayan. Investigative findings indicate that CMRL transferred approximately Rs 3.28 crore to Veena's firm without receiving any tangible professional services in return. The investigative agency flagged these transactions as potentially part of an illicit bribery arrangement, pressing for a dedicated corruption inquiry. Exercising powers under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the agency forwarded the collected records, documentation, and specific allegations concerning Pinarayi Vijayan, T. Veena, and P.A. Mohamed Riyas to the state police chief, demanding a comprehensive probe under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other relevant statutory provisions. What this means for you This High Court directive carries significant legal and political implications for state governance and accountability. • Across India: The verdict strengthens the judicial principle that material shared by central agencies must lead to immediate FIR registrations rather than protracted preliminary verifications. It reinforces the application of anti-corruption laws against high-ranking political figures across states. • In Kerala: The registration of an FIR directly against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his family members intensifies scrutiny on the state's political leadership. For local citizens, it ensures that allegations of financial impropriety involving public representatives are subject to formal police investigation. • Corporate Transparency: The development highlights rigorous oversight regarding corporate payments made to firms owned by relatives of elected officials. It emphasizes that business transactions lacking genuine underlying services can face severe criminal scrutiny. • Administrative Functioning: The state police and vigilance machinery will now face heightened legal obligations to handle sensitive graft allegations with procedural independence. It reinforces the authority of courts to intervene when administrative inquiries appear to stall statutory action. Why this happened The High Court ruling arose from investigative material shared by central authorities and the state's reluctance to register an immediate criminal case. • Direct Trigger: Financial records revealed that CMRL paid approximately Rs 3.28 crore to T. Veena's firm without receiving corresponding professional services. The Enforcement Directorate subsequently forwarded these findings to the state police chief under the PMLA framework. • Administrative Delay Challenged: Rather than registering a regular FIR, the state administration constituted an SIT under an ADGP for a preliminary inquiry. Advocate K.M. Shajahan challenged this approach in court, demanding direct registration under the Prevention of Corruption Act. • Judicial Determination: The High Court concluded that the available material warranted a full-fledged investigation, ruling that administrative delays via preliminary inquiries cannot substitute for statutory criminal proceedings when cognizable offenses are alleged. Questions & Answers 1. Against whom did the Kerala High Court order the registration of an FIR? The court ordered an FIR against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, and MLA P.A. Mohamed Riyas. 2. Which corporate entities are central to these financial allegations? The controversy concerns transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Private Limited. 3. What is the total sum alleged to have been transferred without services? Investigative findings claim that CMRL paid approximately Rs 3.28 crore to Veena's firm without receiving any services. 4. Who moved the petition in the Kerala High Court? Advocate K.M. Shajahan filed the plea challenging the state police's decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry instead of registering a case. 5. Under which provision did the central agency share the case details? The material was forwarded to the state police chief under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). https://trendkia.com/en/kerala/kerala-high-court-ka-bara-phaisala-pinarayi-vijayan-beti-t-veena-aura-p-a-mohamed-riyas-para-darja-hogi-fir-45194 TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.