The Supreme Court warned ED against interfering with other investigating agencies.
It stayed the Kerala Police investigation in the CMRL-Exalogic case for a week.
The FIR remains intact pending consideration by a Kerala High Court division bench.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday warned the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against interfering in the functioning of other investigating agencies while staying the Kerala Police investigation in the CMRL-Exalogic case for a week.
A bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the ED could pursue its own prosecution but could not dictate how the state police should act on information it had shared, Bar and Bench reported.
“Go ahead with your prosecution. Don't extend your hand beyond your statutory limits. We are making it very clear. Don't use the process of statutory powers to meddle into the statutory domain of other entities,” Justice Bagchi said.
The bench was hearing petitions by CPI(M) leader and former Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena Thaikkandiyil and her husband Mohammed Riyas. They challenged a Kerala High Court order directing the registration of an FIR based on information supplied by the ED.
The Supreme Court kept the FIR in place but stayed the investigation for a week. It sent the matter back to a division bench of the high court for a final decision on the FIR’s validity.
“We will maintain the FIR, but no investigation until and unless these issues are decided by the appellate forum,” Justice Bagchi said during the hearing.
The Congress-led Kerala government had opted for a preliminary inquiry rather than immediately registering an FIR. Activist-lawyer KM Shajahan challenged that decision, following which the high court ordered the registration of a case. The ED supported his contention that the state police should have registered an FIR on receiving its information.
Questioning that sequence, the Supreme Court noted that the state had already constituted a Special Investigation Team to examine the complaint and submit a preliminary inquiry report, Bar and Bench reported.
“He intimated the State. Now it is for the State to act as per law,” Justice Bagchi said, referring to the ED’s communication.
The judge observed that Shajahan had approached the high court within a day, without waiting for the preliminary inquiry. Whether the state’s response complied with the law required consideration, the bench said.
The court also questioned why the high court had directed the registration of an FIR without hearing Vijayan and the others named as accused.
“What was the great urgency, without even including a party to be heard, that this order had to be passed?” Justice Mohana asked.
The bench said the ED remained free to investigate allegations within its jurisdiction, but cautioned it against using those powers to enter the statutory domain of another agency.
