CMRL payoff case: Setback for Pinarayi Vijayan, kin as Kerala HC dismisses pleas to appeal against FIR order

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 15, 2026) dismissed the pleas filed by former Keralam Chief Minister and current Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena and son-in-law and former Minister P.A. Mohamed Riyas to file an appeal against a Single Judge’s direction to register an FIR against them in the ₹278-crore CMRL-Exalogic payoff case.

Rejecting the applications seeking leave to appeal filed by Mr. Vijayan, Ms. Veena and Mr. Riyas against the direction issued by the Single Judge on October 9, a Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John held that the order has not affected the applicants’ right to pursue their constitutional or statutory remedies against the registration of the FIR.

Therefore, it is clear that the impugned judgment has not affected the right of the applicants to pursue their constitutional or statutory remedy against the registration of the FIR. In such a situation, the applicants have not established a prima facie or arguable case for granting the leave they sought. “We find that when sufficient material disclosing commission of cognisable offences are furnished along with the information under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, there is no necessity for conducting a preliminary inquiry. The accused in a corruption case have no legal right to be heard before registering the FIR. They are also not entitled to demand a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in a corruption case,” the court said.

The Division Bench had on Wednesday (October 14, 2026) reserved its order on the pleas. The court had held that it would not stay the operation of the impugned order before deciding whether to allow the appeal, stating that it had to follow the prescribed procedure before considering a stay.

The lawyers representing Mr. Vijayan, Ms. Veena and Mr. Riyas had argued that they had not been given an opportunity to be heard, even though the Single Judge’s order directly affected them. They thus sought a stay on its operation, stating that any delay would render their appeals pointless.

They further contended that, through the directive to register the FIR, the Single Judge had foreclosed the options available to the accused. Otherwise, if a Station House Officer or the State had registered the FIR, the accused could have challenged it before the court.

Advocate General K. Jaju Babu contended that the State was conducting a preliminary inquiry based on information provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the accused. The Single Judge set it aside while directing the registration of an FIR. He further contended that, through the preliminary inquiry, the State wanted to ascertain whether the information provided by the ED disclosed a cognisable offence.

The State further contended that the writ petition filed before the Single Judge should have been filed as a public interest litigation (PIL) to be considered by the appropriate forum. The State stood by its decision to ensure a fair investigation and ***erted that it had the discretion to decide whether to register an FIR or conduct a preliminary inquiry, it contended.