Case at a Glance
A Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, on a writ petition by respondent K.M. Shajahan, quashed the State’s decision to hold a preliminary enquiry and directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR and investigate, based on material shared by the Enforcement Directorate concerning CMRL and Exalogic. The appellants, who were not parties to the writ, were refused leave to appeal by a Division Bench. The Supreme Court held that they had locus to appeal, set aside the refusal and restored their appeals before the Division Bench. It stayed investigation in the FIRs for ten days, expressing no view on the merits.
According to the Enforcement Directorate’s counsel, the SFIO began an investigation under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 into the affairs of M/s CMRL and M/s Exalogic, a company wholly owned by Veena T., and the ED, in its investigation under the PMLA, shared information with the State Government under Section 66(2) of that Act. The Director General of Police constituted a nine-member SIT for a preliminary enquiry. Dissatisfied with the delay, respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala.
The Single Judge quashed the decision to hold a preliminary enquiry and directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR forthwith, obtain the PMLA material, investigate and file a final report. The appellants, among them Pinarayi Vijayan and Veena T., had not been parties to the writ petition; their applications for leave to appeal were rejected by the Division Bench, which held that no preliminary inquiry was needed and that accused persons have no right of hearing before an FIR is registered. The State told the Supreme Court that two FIRs were registered on 12 October 2026 at PS-SIU-1, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can persons who were not parties to a writ petition, but against whom a High Court has directed registration of an FIR and investigation, be denied leave to appeal against that direction?
A Judicial Direction Can Be Challenged by Those It Affects
Respondent no. 1 argued, relying on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) 07 SC CK 0102, (2023) 12 SCC 1, that registration of an FIR on the ED’s information was mandatory and that the appellants had no right of hearing. The Court rejected the argument that the FIRs were registered on the State’s own initiative: they were registered under a judicial order, after the Single Judge found that a cognizable offence was disclosed. The appellants could not be barred from challenging that finding, and the Court held that they “had locus to prefer appeal”, so leave had been wrongly refused.
The Court also observed that the Single Judge had gone beyond directing registration of an FIR and had ordered investigation and a final report, which may engage other statutory steps such as sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It noted that the BNSS has changed the position from the old Code, with Section 175(4) requiring a report from a superior officer and consideration of the public servant’s assertions before a magistrate orders investigation against a public servant, but referred to this only to show the wider participation the new law contemplates. All observations were confined to locus.
What the Court Actually Held
- The appellants had locus to appeal against the Single Judge’s direction, and the Division Bench wrongly refused leave.
- The impugned judgment and order were set aside and the appellants’ appeals restored to the Division Bench.
- Investigation in the impugned FIRs was stayed for ten days, without any conclusive view on interim relief; the Division Bench may fashion interim relief independently, and the appellants may seek it in accordance with law.
- No view was expressed on the merits or on the validity of a subsequent ECIR, which was left open for challenge in appropriate proceedings.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It recognises that persons affected by a court-ordered FIR can challenge the finding of a cognizable offence even if they were not parties to the writ.
- It notes the shift under Section 175(4) BNSS towards hearing public servants before investigation is ordered by a magistrate.
- It concerns a closely watched matter in Kerala; the Court has decided only procedure, not guilt.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Persons Named in FIRs
- If a High Court directs an FIR against you in a writ to which you were not a party, you may seek leave to appeal.
- Interim relief must be sought from the court hearing the appeal.
For Counsel
- Distinguish an FIR registered by police on its own from one registered under a judicial direction.
- Raise Section 17A PC Act sanction where a court orders investigation of a public servant.
- Note the role of Section 175(4) BNSS for complaints against public servants.
Key Takeaways
- Non-parties affected by a court-ordered FIR have locus to appeal.
- Leave to appeal was wrongly refused; appeals restored.
- Investigation stayed for ten days only.
- No view on the merits of the allegations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court quash the FIRs?
No. It restored the appeals before the Kerala High Court’s Division Bench and stayed investigation for ten days; the FIRs themselves remain.
Why did the appellants have the right to appeal?
Because the FIRs were registered under a judicial order based on a finding that a cognizable offence was disclosed, which affects them and which they are entitled to challenge.
Is this a final judgment?
It is a reasoned order of the Supreme Court dated 21 October 2026; no INSC citation appears in the text read.
Conclusion
Pinarayi Vijayan v. K.M. Shajahan is about access to the appellate court, not about the allegations. Those affected by a judicial direction to register an FIR are entitled to be heard on appeal against it.
Practical takeaway: Where a writ court directs an FIR and investigation against non-parties, they can seek leave to appeal; the question whether a cognizable offence is disclosed remains open to challenge.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com