IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).3530-3531 OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO(S).2987-2988/2025)
R. MADHAVAN PILLAI APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAJENDRAN UNNITHAN. S & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. As per the office report, all the respondents have been
served. The second to fourth respondents are represented by a
learned counsel.
2. Leave granted.
3. The explanation of the appellant in the affidavit filed
pursuant to the order dated 27th January, 2025 is hereby accepted.
4. While dealing with the writ appeals, by the impugned judgment,
the Division Bench of the High Court directed the Enforcement
Director to register an Enforcement Case Information Report (for
short, “the ECIR”). Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment
read thus:
“6. On perusal of the order passed as extracted above, it is evident that the FIR has been only registered firstly against only the Secretary. It is wholly intriguing as to how and in what manner the other surcharge persons has been let off with no criminal case. We would like to have the information from tho Home Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary, Co- operative Societies by way of an affidavit, explaining the circumstances and the reasons of not registering the FIR against the other persons, as it is settled law that both criminal ...