The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has informed the Kerala High Court on Saturday (September 26, 2026) that the State Police must register a First Information Report (FIR) to investigate the offences revealed during the ED probe into the CMRL-Exalogic payoff case

The ED explained to the Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen that, while investigating the offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act), allegedly committed by T. Veena, daughter of Opposition Leader Pinarayi Vijayan and her company, Exalogic, they received information regarding a predicate offence, which would fall under the purview of the State Police. Accordingly, the ED shared the information with the State Police Chief.

The court observed that the ED and the petitioner, lawyer K.M. Shajahan, were unified on the stand that the registration of an FIR was mandatory and there was no scope for preliminary inquiry, overlooking the finding of the ED. The information given to the State police was directed to be produced in a sealed cover to maintain the secrecy of its contents.

Mr. Shajahan had approached the court seeking the registration of an FIR and investigation into allegations of intentional enrichment of former Chief Minister of Kerala and Opposition Leader Pinarayi Vijayan, abetment under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and money-laundering by his daughter Veena T. and son-in-law and former PWD Minister Shri Mohammed Riyas.

The ED, on September 7, sent a detailed report to the State Police Chief seeking registration of a separate FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other relevant laws against Mr. Vijayan, Mr. Riyas, and Ms. Veena. The report accused Mr. Vijayan of receiving a bribe of ₹3.28 crore through his daughter.

The Advocate General, K. Jaju Babu, countered that if the ED was aggrieved by the alleged inaction of the State Police, it should have approached the court, as was apparent from its many cases pending before the court in different matters. Further, he argued that the petition was filed under the guise of public interest, but showed a vested interest in the matter. The petitioner then said there was no possible private interest in PC Act cases.

The court stated that it would consider whether the State Police had the option to conduct a preliminary inquiry before deciding to register an FIR upon receiving information about an offence from the ED under the PMLA. The matter would be posted again next week for a detailed hearing.