The Kerala High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and four of its senior officials. The petitions challenged the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) investigation and the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered against them.
Justice T.R. Ravi delivered the judgment on May 26, 2026, in M/s Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited & Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement.
The Court held that the challenge was premature. It also clarified that the ED can investigate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) even without a prior FIR for a scheduled offence.
Petitioners Challenge ED Jurisdiction
The petitioners included CMRL, Managing Director S.N. Sasidharan Kartha, Chief Financial Officer K.S. Suresh Kumar, Senior Manager N.C. Chandrashekharan, and Senior Officer Anju Rachael Kuruvila.
They sought to quash the ECIR and all related proceedings.
According to the petitioners, the ED lacked jurisdiction because authorities had not established any scheduled offence under the PMLA.
They also challenged the summons issued during the investigation.
Background of the CMRL Controversy
The ED launched its probe following allegations of bribery and money laundering involving CMRL.
The controversy gained political attention after reports surfaced about payments allegedly made by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Veena Thaikkandiyil, also known as Veena Vijayan, owns the company. She is the daughter of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
The ED is examining whether these transactions formed part of a larger scheme involving illegal payments and proceeds of crime.
Court Finds Petition Premature
Justice Ravi noted that the ED had only issued summons seeking statements and documents.
At this stage, the agency had not taken any coercive action.
Therefore, the Court found that no cause of action had arisen.
The Court observed that the summons merely required recipients to provide truthful statements and relevant records.
Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners approached the Court too early.
It therefore declined to interfere with the ongoing investigation.
FIR Not Required for ED Investigation
A major issue before the Court was whether the ED could investigate without a registered FIR or complaint relating to a scheduled offence.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument.
Justice Ravi held that the ED’s investigative powers do not depend on the registration of an FIR.
The Court specifically observed that issuing summons during an investigation does not require a prior FIR.
Accordingly, the ED can independently investigate allegations of money laundering during the preliminary stage.
SFIO Complaint Weakens Petitioners’ Case
The Court also considered developments before the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).
Justice Ravi noted that the SFIO had already filed a complaint alleging offences under the Companies Act.
These offences qualify as scheduled offences under the PMLA.
As a result, the Court found that the petitioners’ argument lacked merit.
The SFIO complaint directly weakened their claim that no scheduled offence existed.
No Reason to Interfere With ED Summons
The Court further held that it could not interfere with the summons merely because the SFIO complaint was filed later.
Additionally, the Court rejected the argument that the ED’s powers depend on a final report filed by the SFIO under Section 212 of the Companies Act.
The Court clarified that the ED can exercise its statutory powers independently.
Petitions Dismissed
After examining the issues, the Court found no merit in the petitions.
Accordingly, it dismissed the challenge and allowed the ED investigation to continue.
The ruling reinforces an important legal principle. It confirms that the ED can investigate suspected money laundering even before authorities register an FIR for a scheduled offence.
It also confirms that the agency can issue summons under the PMLA at a preliminary stage of investigation.
