The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed further investigation for seven days in the Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL)-Exalogic payoff case involving former Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and son-in-law PA Mohammed Riyas, allowing them to challenge the Kerala high court’s order directing the registration of a criminal case.
The High Court had relied on a communication sent by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to the state police on September 22 disclosing a cognisable offence in the CMRL-Exalogic case. It was alleged that the state-owned CMRL paid a sum of over ₹ 2.78 crore to Exalogic Solutions Pvt Ltd – a company fully owned by Vijayan’s daughter Veena T – without the company rendering any services.
The state had registered the FIR on October 12 and was pursuing the investigation in the matter. The top court, in a special sitting held during the week-long Dussehra break, allowed Vijayan and others to appeal against the single judge’s October 9 order, setting aside the High Court division bench’s October 15 decision dismissing his appeal. They stated that even the October 9 order directing the registration of the FIR and further investigation was passed without hearing Vijayan. In this connection, Vijayan had also been summoned by the ED on October 23 for questioning. The bench cited Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) – the provision replacing Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure – which introduces a condition that requires the public servant to be heard prior to ordering an investigation into a complaint arising in the course of the discharge of his official duties.
“We direct the investigation in the FIR shall remain stayed for a week. The bench clarified that the stay applied only to further investigation and not to the registration of the first information report (FIR). Vijayan, represented by senior advocates Siddharth Luthra and N Hariharan, submitted that the dismissal of his appeal left him remediless. Luthra informed the court that based on the fresh FIR, the ED had registered a fresh Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) alleging money laundering charges arising out of the same set of allegations. The bench observed, “Howsoever high you will be, you cannot be above law. We will not order a stay on the FIR.
Our order shall not be taken as an opinion expressed on the interim relief that the division bench (of the high court) shall fashion based on facts and the law,” a bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said. But on the points of whether cognisable offence is made out, the statutory requirement of continuation of investigation, we have said that you need to be heard by the high court.
Shajahan’s lawyer informed the court that there was no requirement in law for hearing the potential accused before the registration of an FIR.
