Kerala High Court dismisses leave to appeal against FIR order in CMRL-Exalogic case

The Kerala High Court on Thursday, 15 October 2026, dismissed applications by former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena and her husband, former minister P.A. Mohammed Riyas, seeking leave to appeal against a Single Judge’s direction to register a First Information Report (FIR) against them in the CMRL-Exalogic case, according to The Hindu, LiveLaw and The New Indian Express.

What the Bench held

The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John said the Single Judge’s judgment “has not affected the right of the applicants to pursue their constitutional or statutory remedy against the registration of the FIR”, and dismissed all the applications, LiveLaw reported. The Bench added that, so long as cognisance of an offence has not been taken, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed to quash an FIR, and that after cognisance the court’s power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita can be invoked, LiveLaw reported.

LiveLaw reported that the Bench framed three questions, including whether an accused in a corruption case has a legal right to be heard before an FIR is registered and whether such an accused can demand a preliminary inquiry first. It reported that the Bench answered both in the negative.

Background

On 9 October, a Single Judge directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on information forwarded by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, according to The New Indian Express and LiveLaw. The Single Judge found the State’s decision to hold a preliminary inquiry through a special team, without registering an FIR, to be illegal on the facts of the case and set it aside.

The VACB registered two FIRs on 12 October; our earlier report sets out what they say. They record allegations for investigation. Those named have not been convicted of anything, and the persons named have denied wrongdoing in the coverage we reviewed earlier.

Arguments in court

For the applicants, the argument was that the Single Judge’s order affected them directly but was passed without hearing them. They also argued that an FIR registered on the court’s direction left them without the option of challenging one registered by the police or the State, The Hindu reported.

Advocate General K. Jaju Babu told the court that the State had been conducting a preliminary inquiry on the ED’s information to ascertain whether it disclosed a cognisable offence, and that the writ petition before the Single Judge should have been filed as a public interest litigation, The Hindu reported. The State said it stood by its decision to ensure a fair investigation and that it had discretion over whether to register an FIR or hold a preliminary inquiry.

The reports reviewed do not carry a response from the applicants to Thursday’s ruling.

What happens next

The Bench’s observations leave open the remedy of a petition to quash the FIR before the High Court. The reports reviewed do not say whether any of the applicants intends to file one or to approach another forum.