Pinarayi, Veena, and others seek to quash monthly payment case; High Court questions need for pre-FIR hearing

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has questioned why an accused person needs to be heard before an FIR is registered in a criminal case, asking what prevents the registration of a case when information about an offence is received. The oral observations were made by a Division Bench comprising Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John while hearing appeals filed by former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and others against a single-judge order directing the registration of a case in the monthly payout controversy.

The court made the observations after the appellants contended that the single judge had passed the order without hearing their side. Anyone can provide information about a crime, the court observed. The informant need not necessarily be the victim, an injured person or a relative of the deceased. A case can be registered if there is prima facie reason to believe that a crime has occurred, the Bench said orally.

Besides Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, his son-in-law and former minister P. A. Mohammed Riyas, and Kozhikode CPM leader P. Nikhil have also filed appeals. They have sought to quash the single-judge order dated October 9 and the vigilance case initiated on its basis. They have also sought a stay on further proceedings until the appeals are disposed of.

The petitions were adjourned to the following day as they had not been placed before the Bench after the defects pointed out by the registry were rectified.

Arguments in the appeals

Pinarayi Vijayan: He contended that the allegation that the money paid by CMRL to his daughter's company was a bribe paid to him was baseless. The Enforcement Directorate's report did not state that he had demanded or received money from anyone, he argued. He also maintained that the single judge's failure to hear his side violated the principles of natural justice.

He further contended that petitions in the nature of public interest litigation should be considered by a Division Bench.

P. A. Mohammed Riyas and P. Nikhil: They argued that information forwarded under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was insufficient to justify the registration of a case. They also questioned the Enforcement Directorate's recommendation to register a case against a group of people without individual assessments.

They contended that the single judge had not properly considered the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) report and the relevant earlier orders.

T. Veena: She contended that the allegations had been dismissed by the vigilance courts in Muvattupuzha and Thiruvananthapuram, and that the decisions had been upheld by the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court.

She further argued that, since the SFIO was investigating the transactions between CMRL and Exalogic, there was a legal impediment to an investigation by another agency.