Pinarayi Vijayan v. K.M. Shajahan & Ors.

Criminal Appeals of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 20437, 20425, 20471 and 20504 of 2026) · Decided 21 October 2026

Bench

Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, JJ. (Order of the Court)

Impugned order

Judgment and order dated 15.10.2026 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in I.A. No. 1 of 2026, refusing leave to appeal against a Single Judge’s judgment in a writ petition and dismissing the appeals

Parties

Appellants: the former Chief Minister of Kerala, his daughter, her husband (a former Minister) and one other, none of whom was a party to the writ petition. Respondents: the writ petitioner (K.M. Shajahan), the State of Kerala and the Enforcement Directorate

Statutes

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, S. 66(2); Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S. 17A; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 175(4); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 156(3); Companies Act, 2013, S. 447

Cases referred

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1 (relied on by the writ petitioner; held not to bar the appeal)

Counsel

For the appellants: Mr. Sidharth Luthra and Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocates, with Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, Mr. Sahil Sharma, M/s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates and Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, AORs, and other advocates. For the writ petitioner (respondent 1): Mr. Koshy John, with Mr. M.S. Vishnu Sankar and M/s Lawfic, AOR. For the State: Mr. Ramesh Babu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR. For the Enforcement Directorate: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR

Result

Appeals disposed of. Refusal of leave set aside; the appeals restored before the Division Bench; investigation in the FIRs stayed for ten days to enable the appellants to seek interim relief. No opinion on merits

Catchwords

Locus to appeal — Leave to appeal by persons not parties to a writ petition — Single Judge directing registration of FIR, investigation and final report on information shared by the Enforcement Directorate under S. 66(2), PMLA — Division Bench refusing leave on the footing that an accused has no right to be heard before an FIR — Vijay Madanlal Choudhary — FIR registered on a judicial order, not by the State on its own — Judicial finding that a cognizable offence is disclosed would bind the accused in any later challenge to the FIR — S. 175(4), BNSS — Participation of a public servant before investigation is ordered on a complaint — Direction for investigation and final report may attract S. 17A, PC Act — Held, the appellants had locus to appeal and leave was wrongly refused. — Appeals restored — Investigation stayed for ten days — Validity of the ECIR left open.

Short Note

The Enforcement Directorate shared information with the State under Section 66(2) of the PMLA. The State set up a Special Investigation Team for a preliminary enquiry. The writ petitioner went to the Kerala High Court, and a Single Judge quashed the decision to hold a preliminary enquiry. He directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR forthwith, investigate and file a final report. The appellants, who were named in that information but were not parties to the writ petition, sought leave to appeal. The Division Bench refused, holding that an accused has no right to be heard before an FIR is registered in a corruption case. The Supreme Court disagreed. Here the FIR was registered not by the State on its own but on a judicial order, which itself found that a cognizable offence was disclosed. If the appellants could not challenge that finding in appeal, it would stand against them in any later proceeding against the FIR. The Court also noted that Section 175(4) of the BNSS now provides for a public servant’s participation before investigation is ordered on a complaint. It observed that a direction for investigation and a final report may bring in requirements such as sanction under Section 17A. The appeals were restored before the Division Bench, with investigation stayed for ten days so the appellants could seek interim relief.

Headnote

1. Why the Division Bench refused leave. The Division Bench held that the Single Judge’s judgment did not affect the appellants’ right to pursue their remedies against the FIR, so no arguable case for leave was made out. It also held that where information under S. 66(2) of the PMLA, with sufficient material disclosing cognizable offences, is furnished, no preliminary inquiry is needed. And it held that an accused in a corruption case has no right to be heard before an FIR is registered, or to demand a preliminary inquiry. [Paras 9–10]
2. An FIR registered on a judicial order is different. The writ petitioner relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, arguing that the State was obliged to register an FIR on the S. 66(2) communication and that the accused had no right of hearing at that stage. The Court did not accept this. This was not a case where the State registered a case on its own on receipt of the communication. Registration and investigation followed a judicial order, in which the Single Judge observed that the material disclosed a cognizable offence and that registration was therefore obligatory. If the appellants could not assail that finding in appeal, it would come in their way in any independent proceeding challenging the FIR. [Paras 11–12]
3. S. 175(4), BNSS: participation of the public servant. Under S. 156(3) of the CrPC, a Magistrate could direct registration of an FIR without the participation of the public servant or his superior. S. 175(4) of the BNSS changes this. On a complaint against a public servant arising in the course of official duties, the Magistrate may order investigation only after receiving a report from the officer superior to him and considering the public servant’s assertions. The ED argued that this applies only to acts in the discharge of official duty and not to former public servants in corruption cases. The Court clarified that it referred to S. 175(4) not on the merits, but to show the wider scope the new law gives for a potential accused’s participation before an FIR. [Paras 12–14]
4. The direction went beyond registration of the FIR. The Single Judge did not merely direct registration of an FIR, which is what Vijay Madanlal Choudhary mandates. He also directed investigation and the filing of a final report. That may require consideration of other statutory requirements under the special law, including sanction under S. 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. [Para 14]
5. Locus established; leave wrongly refused. These circumstances showed that the appellants had locus to appeal against the Single Judge’s judgment, and their prayer for leave to appeal was incorrectly turned down. The Division Bench’s judgment was set aside, and the appeals restored to its file. [Paras 15–16]
6. Interim arrangement; merits and ECIR left open. The observations are limited to the appellants’ locus to appeal and are not an opinion on the merits. The appellants may seek interim relief before the Division Bench. To enable that, investigation in the FIRs is stayed for ten days. This is not a conclusive view on interim relief, which the Division Bench may fashion independently. No opinion was expressed on the validity of an ECIR later registered in respect of the FIRs, which is left open for appropriate proceedings. [Paras 17–19]

Facts in Brief

• SFIO / EDAccording to the ED, the SFIO began an investigation under S. 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 into the affairs of M/s CMRL and M/s Exalogic, the latter wholly owned by the former Chief Minister’s daughter. Material that emerged in the PMLA investigation was shared by the ED with the State under S. 66(2).
• SITThe Director General of Police constituted a nine-member Special Investigation Team to conduct a preliminary enquiry. The writ petitioner, calling this a delay, approached the High Court.
• Single JudgeThe decision to hold a preliminary enquiry was quashed. The Director, VACB was directed to register an FIR forthwith under the PC Act against the persons named in the S. 66(2) information, to investigate and to file a final report, with the ED to forward the documents.
• 12.10.2026FIRs VC 6/2026 and VC 7/2026 registered at SIU-1, Thiruvananthapuram; investigation commenced.
• 15.10.2026Division Bench refused the appellants leave to appeal and dismissed their appeals.
• 21.10.2026Supreme Court granted leave, heard the appeals and restored them before the Division Bench.

Contentions

Order

Prepared by LAW LIBRARY. Online. This summary is for quick reference only. It is not a substitute for the full text of the judgment, which should be read before relying on it.