CMRL Pay-Off Case: Kerala Vigilance Registers Two FIRs Against Pinarayi Vijayan, Family Moves High Court
The Kerala Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau has registered two separate FIRs in the CMRL–Exalogic case following a High Court directive.
Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala’s Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) has registered two First Information Reports (FIRs) in the alleged Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) pay-off case, naming former Chief Minister and LoP Pinarayi Vijayan and members of his family. The development follows a Kerala High Court order directing the state agency to initiate a criminal investigation into allegations linked to payments made to his daughter’s company, Exalogic Solutions.
Meanwhile, Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and son-in-law P A Mohammed Riyas have approached the High Court, seeking permission to challenge the single-judge order. They contend that the directive was issued without giving them an opportunity to present their arguments.
Two FIRs Registered by Vigilance
The VACB registered the two cases on Monday, 12 October through its Special Investigation Unit-1, following legal advice and the High Court’s directive. Both cases have been registered under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The first FIR concerns alleged payments made by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions, the now-defunct information technology company associated with Veena. Pinarayi Vijayan has been named the first accused in this case, while Veena is also named as an accused.
The second FIR concerns allegations of corruption-related wealth accumulation and the transfer of money abroad through suspected illegal channels. Mohammed Riyas, a CPI(M) legislator and Vijayan’s son-in-law, has been named the first accused in this case, according to media reports. Veena has also been named as an accused.
The two cases will be investigated separately. The registration of FIRs marks the beginning of the criminal investigation and does not establish the guilt of the individuals named.
What Is the CMRL–Exalogic Case?
The case came into the spotlight in 2023 following an Income Tax investigation into financial transactions between CMRL, a Kochi-based minerals company, and Exalogic Solutions, which was associated with Veena.
The Income Tax Department’s Interim Board for Settlement examined payments made to Exalogic under an agreement for IT consultancy and related services. The proceedings identified approximately ₹1.72 crore in payments during the 2017–18 and 2018–19 financial years, with questions raised over whether the services had actually been provided.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) subsequently investigated the transactions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). According to the agency’s findings, CMRL allegedly paid a total of approximately ₹2.78 crore to Exalogic under the guise of consultancy and marketing services. The ED also examined payments reportedly made to Veena in her capacity as a consultant.
The agency claimed that the payments were made despite no corresponding services being provided, raising suspicions of possible corruption that required further investigation. These claims remain allegations and will have to be examined through the legal process.
Also Read :- India’s First Cyber Trojan Horse Installation Made from E-Waste Unveiled at Cocon 2026 in Kochi
Why Did the Kerala High Court Order an FIR?
The latest development followed a petition filed by activist K M Shajahan, who challenged the state government’s decision to order a preliminary inquiry rather than immediately register an FIR based on information supplied by the ED.
The ED had referred its findings to the state police under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, requesting action over suspected violations of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
On October 9, Justice A Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court directed the state’s Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR and investigate the allegations. The court found that the material forwarded by the ED disclosed sufficient initial grounds to indicate possible cognisable offences.
The court also held that a further preliminary inquiry was not required in the circumstances and directed the ED to provide the necessary documents to the vigilance authorities. The ruling effectively cleared the way for the two FIRs registered on Monday.
Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena and Riyas Challenge the Order
On October 12, Vijayan, Veena and Riyas filed separate petitions before the High Court’s Division Bench seeking leave to appeal against the single judge’s decision.
Their principal argument is that they were not parties to the original petition and were not given an opportunity to be heard before an order directing criminal proceedings against them was passed. They contend that the decision violates the principles of natural justice.
The petitioners have also questioned whether the ED’s communication could compel the state police to register an FIR without a preliminary inquiry. They argue that the ED cannot dictate the manner in which state police authorities exercise their powers and have raised concerns about the implications for the federal structure.
The petitions were scheduled to be considered by the Division Bench at 1.45 pm on Monday. Seeking leave to appeal is a procedural step; the court must decide whether to permit the challenge before the appeal can be considered on its merits.