ECIR quashing set aside where acquittals in two predicate cases were considered despite a subsisting conviction in a connected case.

ECIR proceedings were challenged on the basis that the respondent had been acquitted in two predicate cases, but one connected predicate case ended in conviction and the appeals against both the acquittals and conviction were still pending. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred in quashing the ECIR by relying on the acquittals while ignoring the subsisting conviction in the third case. Leave was granted, and the impugned order was stayed during the pendency of the appeal, with the appellants permitted to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the ECIR proceedings on the ground of acquittal in the predicate cases, despite one connected case ending in conviction and the appeals against the acquittal and conviction judgments remaining pending.

Analysis: The order notes that the ECIR arose from three FIRs and that the respondent had been acquitted in two connected cases, while being convicted in the third. It records that appeals against the acquittal and conviction judgments were pending before the High Court. On that basis, the Court found that the High Court erred in quashing the ECIR proceedings by treating the acquittals as while ignoring the subsisting conviction in one predicate case. Leave was granted and interim protection was issued by staying the operation and effect of the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal.

Outcome: The impugned order was stayed, leave was granted, and the appellants were permitted to proceed in accordance with law pending the appeal.

---