By P. Sreekumaran
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: In a severe setback to the Enforcement Directorate(ED), the Kerala High Court has stayed the First Information Report (FIR) registered in the CMRL-Exalogic payoff case involving Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Pinarayi Vijayan, and his family members.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Johnson John admitted the appeals filed by Vijayan, his daughter Veena and son-in-law and former minister Mohammed Riyas against a Single Bench order directing the registration of an FIR in the payoff case.
In more relief to Pinarayi, the Court also stayed further investigation in the case, and the Single Bench order to register an FIR.
The Single Bench had observed in its order that an offence was prima facie made out in the letter given by the Enforcement Directorate(ED) to the State Police chief, which allegedly contained details of a predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the accused.
The ED is investigating the alleged payoff case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The accused had sought permission to appeal against the Single Bench order, but were denied by the Division Bench. They then approached the Supreme Court, which stayed the investigation and restored the case to the Division Bench files.
The lawyers of the accused argued that the petitioner, K. M. Shajahan, had failed to follow the proper procedure as per the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in seeking the registration of an FIR before the single judge. The petitioner, a stranger in the case, had interfered with the inquiry initiated by the State, after the ED provided the information on the matter to the State Police chief.
They further argued that no cognizable offence could be made out in the ED’s information. They stated that “the transactions stopped at Ms Veena” and that “the information stated that it could be either Mr. Vijayan or Mr. Riyas.” There could be no “either or” in criminal law, and if there was no credible information, then the State could not launch a preliminary inquiry. Advocate General K. Jaju Babu informed the Court that the State was ready to investigate further if the Court permitted. Both the AG and Additional Solicitor General of India P. Sreekumar argued against a stay on the registration of an FIR.
As it felt that the matter needed further consideration, the Court granted the stay on FIR and investigation until further orders.
Meanwhile, the CPI(M) has welcomed the Court order. But the BJP termed it “unfortunate”. The Court, which kept in abeyance the FIR and the probe in the case, also stayed the single judge order of October 9 directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau(VACB) to lodge FIRs against Vijayan, Veena and Riyas. Based on the information given by the ED.
Welcoming the order CPI(M) State secretary M. V. Govindan termed it as upholding the rule of law. The order also vindicated, he added, the party’s stand that the case was “fabricated” to target Pinarayi Vijayan and the CPI(M).
Though the case was initially projected as being against Veena and her now-defunct company, Exalogic Solutions, it was aimed at targeting Pinarayi, Riyas and CPI(M). The High Court has upheld the rule of law by refusing to believe the false narratives in favour of continuing with the FIRs.
However, BJP State vice-president Shone George termed the HC decision as unfortunate. Govindan also blamed the State Government for such a verdict in the case. From the very beginning, he alleged, “Narendra Modi-ED-VD (Satheesan) collaboration” was against the CPI(M) . “We will legally and politically oppose the attacks against the party by this collaboration,” he pointed out.
Incidentally, neither the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) Government nor leaders of the ruling front have commented on the High Court order. (IPA Service)
