Interim protection in PMLA challenges is exceptional; prior exoneration alone did not justify staying proceedings.

Interim protection in proceedings challenging an ECIR and consequential PMLA action is confined to exceptional cases, particularly at the interlocutory stage. The Court reiterated that economic offences are serious, that PMLA proceedings operate under a special statutory scheme, and that the statutory burden regarding the proceeds of crime lies against the accused. Alleged exoneration in other proceedings, by itself, was not enough to justify staying PMLA action at the initial stage. Interim relief was declined and the proceedings were not stayed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim protection could be granted in proceedings challenging the ECIR and consequential PMLA action on the ground that the petitioner had been exonerated in other proceedings and that the matter warranted stay of further action.

Analysis: The request for interim relief was considered against the settled limits on interference at the interlocutory stage in criminal and PMLA matters. The Court noted that economic offences are grave, that money-laundering proceedings are governed by a special statutory scheme, and that the burden under the PMLA operates against the accused as to the nature of the proceeds. The Court also applied the principle that interim protection in quashing proceedings can be granted only in exceptional cases, and that the alleged exoneration in other proceedings did not by itself justify staying the PMLA action at the initial stage.

Conclusion: Interim relief was declined, and the proceedings were not stayed.

---