New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 21) temporarily stayed the investigation into the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL)–Exalogic case involving alleged payments to former Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T, and son-in-law and former minister Muhammed Riyaz.A special bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter.The top court set aside the Kerala high court division bench’s order refusing to hear their appeals against the direction to register a First Information Report (FIR). It held that Vijayan and his family could pursue their appeals before the division bench, while allowing the FIRs to remain in place, LiveLaw reported.The court stayed the investigations for 10 days to enable Vijayan and his family to file their appeal. The bench said that it did not agree with the Enforcement Directorate’s argument that the petitioners had no right to be heard before the registration of an FIR“We are not against any investigation. We will maintain the FIR but no investigation until and unless the issues are decided by the appellate court,” Justice Bagchi said.The court also cautioned the ED against interfering with the statutory responsibilities of other investigative agencies, Bar and Bench reported.“We are unable to agree…this is not a case where on receipt of communication under Section 66(2) PMLA, the State had registered FIR on its own. On the contrary, the registration of FIR and commencement of investigation was pursuant to the order passed by the Constitutional Court.While passing such order, the single bench had inter alia observed that the materials in the communication by the ED disclosed a cognizable offence and therefore it was obligatory for the State to register FIR. If the petitioners are not permitted to assail such finding of fact, the same shall stare at them in an independent proceeding challenging the FIR,” the court said.The court also referred to Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which introduced a requirement involving a public servant or their superior in the process of deciding whether to direct the registration of an FIR through judicial intervention. Under the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Section 156(3) did not contain such a requirement, LiveLaw reported.The bench clarified that its reference to Section 175(4) was not an assessment of the merits of the case, but an explanation of the “expansive jurisdiction” under the new law concerning a potential accused before an FIR is registered.Kerala high court’s directionThe Kerala Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) had registered two FIRs following the high court’s direction. Vijayan is named as the first accused in one case, while Riyaz is the first accused in the other. Veena T is named as the second accused in both.The ED has alleged that CMRL made payments coming up to Rs 2.78 crore to Exalogic Solutions, a now-defunct company owned by the former chief minister’s daughter, under the pretence of information technology consultancy services.The Kerala high court had directed the registration of FIRs based on a report submitted by the ED to the Kerala Police.On October 15, the high court division bench dismissed Vijayan’s appeal, refusing to interfere with the direction to register an FIR. The bench, comprising Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John, held that an accused person in a corruption case has no legal right to be heard before an FIR is registered.Vijayan and his family approached the Supreme Court on October 16, a day after the high court dismissed their appeals.The ED had last week issued summons to Vijayan, asking the former chief minister to appear before their Kochi office for questioning on October 23. Vijayan’s lawyer had said that he would communicate his inability to appear before the ED as the ongoing assembly session, of which he is a part, will only conclude on October 29.ED’s overreachThe ED has previously come under the scanner for overreach of its power, with the Supreme Court warning it against becoming an instrument of political vendetta.The ED’s cases against National Herald and Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi, MUDA case against former chief minister Siddaramaiah and his wife and the case against Tamil Nadu’s liquor marketing body TASMAC were thrown out by the top court, signalling the unease with ED’s unchecked use of power.In the National Herald case it was noted that it “[was] the first in the history of the ED where the agency initiated money laundering investigation sans any FIR but just on a private complaint. In fact, PMLA was amended in 2019 to fix the loophole, even then the case couldn’t stand the scrutiny of the judiciary.”While in the TASMAC case, the court had called the ED’s actions a violation of the constitutional federal structure.