Kerala HC Impleads Ex-MLA in ADGP's Plea Against Prosecution in Assets Case

KOCHI, KERALA – In a significant procedural development in a high-profile disproportionate assets case, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday allowed former MLA P.V. Anvar to be impleaded as a party in the petition filed by ADGP M.R. Ajithkumar. The senior police official is challenging a Special Court's order to prosecute him for amassing wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The order, passed by Justice A. Badharudheen, permits Anvar, the original complainant in the matter, to be added as the additional 3rd respondent. This decision ensures that the voice of the individual who initiated the corruption allegations will be heard directly by the High Court as it deliberates on the validity of the prosecution against Ajithkumar. The court reasoned that hearing the original complainant was in the "interest of justice," given his foundational role in the proceedings.

Background of the Legal Challenge

The case, titled M.R. Ajithkumar v. State of Kerala (Crl.MC 7741/2025), stems from a petition filed by ADGP Ajithkumar seeking to quash an order by a Special Court that greenlit his prosecution. The current proceedings before the High Court are a critical juncture for the senior officer, who has secured an interim stay on the trial court's proceedings.

The legal battle took a new turn when P.V. Anvar filed a criminal miscellaneous application (Crl.M.A. 2/2025) to be impleaded in Ajithkumar's petition. Anvar's counsel argued that the entire case against the ADGP originated from a detailed complaint he had submitted to the Chief Minister of Kerala during his tenure as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. In his complaint, Anvar had leveled serious allegations against Ajithkumar, including "large scale corruption, fraud, embezzlement and anti-national activities" allegedly conducted in collusion with various officials and private individuals.

Anvar contended that as the primary whistleblower and complainant, his presence was necessary for a just and complete adjudication of the matter. He argued that he possesses crucial information and a direct interest in ensuring the prosecution, which he initiated, is not quashed on procedural or technical grounds without his arguments being considered.

Arguments For and Against Impleadment

The petition for impleadment was strongly opposed by ADGP Ajithkumar. His counsel argued that Anvar is a "habitual litigant" who raises "totally false and baseless allegations against persons of his choice." The objection further stated that Anvar's actions were motivated by "selfish interests" stemming from an "inability to achieve his unjust objectives." Essentially, the ADGP's side painted Anvar as a vexatious party with a personal agenda, whose involvement would only serve to complicate and delay the proceedings unnecessarily. They positioned him as an external party whose role concluded with the filing of the initial complaint and the subsequent investigation.

However, Anvar’s counsel countered that his role was not that of a mere stranger. The investigation reports, specifically cited as Annexures A6 and A7 in the court record, were instrumental in the Special Court's decision to order prosecution. Since these very reports name Anvar as the complainant, it would be a miscarriage of justice, his counsel argued, to prevent him from participating in a proceeding that seeks to nullify the outcome of his complaint.

The Court’s Rationale: The "Interest of Justice"

Justice A. Badharudheen, after carefully considering the pleadings and arguments from both sides, sided with the former MLA. The court's order emphasized that Anvar was intrinsically linked to the genesis of the case and therefore could not be dismissed as a "total stranger."

In a key passage from the order, the judge observed:

"On perusal of the averments in the petition and the objections raised, it could be gathered that the proposed additional 3rd respondent is not a total stranger to the proceedings and in fact, Annexures A6 and A7 reports, which were also considered by the Special Court while passing the impugned order, the proposed additional 3rd respondent is the complainant."

This observation forms the crux of the court's reasoning. By directly linking Anvar to the evidentiary material (Annexures A6 and A7) that the lower court relied upon, Justice Badharudheen established his direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the High Court petition.

The court concluded that allowing Anvar's participation was essential for a comprehensive hearing, without infringing upon the petitioner's rights. The order stated:

"In such a view of the matter, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue his reliefs, there is no reason to disallow the petition so as to hear him also, being the complainant in Annexures A6 and A7 reports. Thus, in the interest of justice, Crl.M.A. 2/2025 stands allowed and the petitioner therein is impleaded as additional 3rd respondent in these proceedings."

Legal and Procedural Implications

This order underscores a significant principle in criminal procedural law, particularly in the context of anti-corruption cases initiated by private complainants or whistleblowers. While the State, through its prosecuting agency, formally takes over the case post-investigation, the courts may recognize the legitimate interest of the original complainant to participate in subsequent proceedings, especially when the very validity of the prosecution is challenged.

For legal practitioners, this ruling serves as a precedent for the impleadment of de facto complainants in petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where an accused seeks to quash proceedings. It affirms that a person whose complaint sets the criminal justice machinery in motion may have a right to be heard if the State's case is challenged. The court’s focus on the complainant’s connection to key evidence (the annexures) provides a clear benchmark for future impleadment petitions.

The decision allows Anvar's legal team to file counter-affidavits, present arguments, and directly challenge the points raised by ADGP Ajithkumar in his plea to quash the prosecution. This ensures a more adversarial and robust examination of the issues before the High Court.

Next Steps

Following the impleadment order, the High Court has posted the case for further hearing on September 25. The court has directed ADGP Ajithkumar to file his reply affidavit to Anvar's contentions in the interim. The existing interim stay, which temporarily halts the prosecution proceedings against Ajithkumar in the Special Court, has been extended until the next hearing date. The upcoming session is expected to feature substantive arguments from all three parties—the ADGP, the State of Kerala, and now, the original complainant, P.V. Anvar.