Division Bench dismisses leave applications by accused challenging FIR registration based on Enforcement Directorate's report under PMLA; affirms FIR registration without hearing accused as per established Supreme Court precedents
In a significant judgment delivered on October 15, 2026, the Kerala High Court Division Bench comprising Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John clarified crucial procedural aspects relating to FIR registration in corruption cases. The court rejected leave applications filed by several accused persons, including a former Chief Minister and other prominent individuals, who sought to challenge the registration of FIRs ordered by a learned Single Judge based on information forwarded by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The controversy arose when a writ petitioner approached the High Court seeking direction to register FIRs against certain public officials, accusing them of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The State Police Chief had initially appointed a special investigation team to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the allegations instead of immediately registering an FIR. The petitioner contended that since the ED's report prima facie disclosed cognizable offences, the police were obligated to register FIRs without delay, and the preliminary inquiry was a stalling tactic to shield the accused.
After a thorough examination of the materials submitted under Section 66(2) of the PMLA and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the Single Judge held that the State's decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry was illegal and directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register FIRs immediately. The accused persons then sought leave to file intra-court appeals against this order, claiming that the FIR registration was ordered without giving them an opportunity to be heard, thereby prejudicing their legal rights.
The Division Bench dismissed these leave applications, emphasizing the settled legal position that accused persons in corruption cases do not have a statutory right to be heard before FIR registration. Citing authoritative Supreme Court rulings including State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy (2025), State of Karnataka v. Channakeshava H.D. (2025), and Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat (2025), the court reiterated that while a preliminary inquiry might be desirable, it is not mandatory when the report prima facie discloses a cognizable offence.
The court further clarified that the Single Judge's order did not directly decide the guilt or innocence of the accused nor did it take away their right to challenge the FIR through appropriate constitutional or statutory remedies such as filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution or invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The Division Bench noted that since the FIRs have already been registered in implementation of the Single Judge's order, the relief sought by the accused became practically infructuous. It was also underscored that the accused can still pursue remedies to quash the FIR or challenge the investigation, ensuring protection of their legal rights.
This ruling reaffirms the principle that in corruption and money laundering cases, prompt registration of FIRs upon receipt of credible information is critical and procedural formalities like preliminary inquiry or prior hearing of accused persons cannot be used as a shield to delay investigations. The judgment strengthens the investigative agencies' ability to act swiftly against corruption and upholds the public interest in combating official misconduct.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Information forwarded by Enforcement Directorate under Section 66(2) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act disclosing cognizable offence - Accused persons have no right of hearing before registration of FIR - Preliminary inquiry in corruption case is not mandatory - Persons against whom FIR is directed to be registered are not entitled to leave to file intra-court appeal merely on ground that they were not heard in writ petition.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Section 66(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 13(1)(b), 13(2), Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 Sections 12, 13(1)(b), 13(2), Indian Penal Code Section 120B, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 61(2), 3(5)
Mohammed Riyas. P. A. v. Adv. K.M.Shajahan, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998070
