N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J. - The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to grant the following reliefs :

(1) to declare F.I.R. 15/97 of Panjagutta Police Station as illegal and to restrain the first respondent to proceed with the investigation pursuant to the F.I.R. after quashing the letters dated 9-1-1997 bearing No. 15/INSN-PC/97 addressed by the first respondent to the petitioner's bankers and subsequent letters.

(2) to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to honour the bank guarantee Nos. 18/47, dated 19-2-1996 and 3/94-95, dated 19-5-1994 furnished by the respondents 2 and 3 to the petitioner and to grant such other reliefs.

2. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of the writ petition are as follows :

"The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Company Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) having Head Office in New Delhi. It has an authorised capital of Rs. 150 crores and paid up capital of Rs. 128.42 crores. It has more than 1.5 lakhs Indian citizens as its members/shareholders. The company has set up a large cement plant at village Ras, Tehsil Jaitaran, Pali District, Rajasthan State involving a capital cost of over Rs. 400 crores. The plant has been set up in technical collaboration with Messrs Nihon Cement Company Ltd., Japan with the financial participation by all leading Indian Financial Institutions as well as International Finance Corporation, Washington. The respondent No. 1 is the Sub-Inspector (sic. Inspector) of Police, Panjagutta. The respondents 2 and 3 are the nationalised banks. The fourth respondent is the company to whom two contracts were entrusted by the petitioner company vide letter of award dated 18-2-1994. The first one was to design, provide engineering, manufacture, supply and supervision services for the limestone crushing plant and the cement packing and loading systems and to do the civil and structural works at a firm price of Rs. 871.50 lakhs. As per the terms of the contract the work has to be completed within 15 months from 14-4-1994 i.e., by 14-7-1995. But the said work was not completed. The second contract was for mechanical erection and commissioning of the plant and machinery for lime stone crushing plant and cement packing and loading systems at a value of Rs. 94.50 lakhs which had to be completed within 19 months i.e., 14-11-1995 but the same was not completed."

3. The petitioner paid a mobilisation advance of Rs. 16,53,750/- to the fourth respondent in the second contract on submission of bank guarantee of Rs. 14,17,500/-. The fourth respondent submitted two bank guarantees, one for the performance of the contract and the other advance bank guarantee for second contract. The petitioner had sought the encashment of the both bank guarantees vide letter dated 8-1-1997.

4. The fourth respondent had entered into contract and had agreed to complete the work within the stipulated time but failed to perform in spite of several letters and reminders made by the petitioner company. The fourth respondent also failed to rectify the defects pointed out by the petitioner in the work that was carried out by the fourth respondent. The second respondent had issued a bank guarantee No. 18/47, dated 19-2-1996 for an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs in favour of the petitioner. The second respondent without any authority of law stopped payment of bank guarantee vide letter No. 15/CR/INSPOPG/97, dated 9-1-1997. The third respondent had also issued an advance bank guarantee No. 3/94-95, dated 19-5-1994 for Rs. 14.175 lakhs. But the same was stopped at the instance of the first respondent vide letter dated 9-1-1997. Apart from stopping the encashment of bank guarantees the first respondent at the instance of the fourth respondent seized the original bank guarantees.

5. Further the case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner had made demand to the respondent banks, the said banks suggested it to surrender the original bank guarantees