1. These petitions are heard and decided together since certain common issues arise.

2. In first of these petitions, petitioner no.1, M/s. Coastal Mines and Minerals (Hereinafter referred to as ‘CMM’, for brevity) is a registered partnership firm. Petitioner no.2, Prasanna V Ghotage (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Ghotage’, for brevity), is one of the partners of CMM. Petitioner no.3 has no connection with CMM. He is the General Manager of a proprietory concern, of which, Ghotage is the proprietor Petitioner no.4 claims that he is not at all associated either with Petitioner No.1 or 2. Petitioner no.5 is said to be the Export Manager of a proprietory concern of Ghotage. Petitioner no.6 is said to be the Chief Executive Officer of M/s. Hira Steels Limited (Hereinafter referred to as ‘HSL’, for brevity) of Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Petitioner no.7 also claims no association with Petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.8 also claims to have no connection with petitioner no.1. But, all the petitioners have joined in filing this petition in the light of a First Information Report in FIR 179/2012 filed by HSL at Raipur, Chhattisgarh State, in which they have been named. The present writ petitions, therefore, are filed questioning the said First Information Report and to quash the same, apart from consequential relief’s.

3. The background to the case is as follows:

CMM is said to have entered into a contract dated 7.5.2011, with HSL agreeing to sell iron ore fines. The quantity was 110000 Metric Tonnes. It was agreed that the iron content, or the Fe content, would be a minimum of 51.50%. HSL had applied for a ‘No Objection Certificate’ with the Directorate of Mines and Geology of the State Government of Goa, dated 7.6.2011, to export 41253 Wet Metric Tonnes of processed iron ore fines to China on the ship M.V. Everbright as a part of the contract, and had also submitted challans towards payment of royalty in respect of the above quantity of 41253 Wet Metric Tonnes to the State Government of Goa. A ‘No Objection Certificate’ was accordingly issued by the competent officer dated 8.6.2011.

It is stated that on 1.7.2011, HSL had in turn entered into a contract of sale with one Neeraj Sreevastava, of M/s. N.R. Resources (Hereinafter referred to as ‘NRR’, for brevity) agreeing to sell 41253 Wet Metric Tonnes of iron ore fines. The bill of lading in respect of the cargo on M.V. Everbright was also endorsed by HSL in favour NRR and all the documents for negotiation of a Letter of Credit in respect of the consignment was submitted to Canara Bank, New Delhi by NRR. It is claimed that the said consignment was, in turn, sold by Neeraj Srivatsava to M/s. China Railways Materials Import and Export Private Limited (Hereinafter referred to as ‘China Railways’, for brevity). This is evidenced by a Letter of Credit opened by China Railways on Neeraj Srivastava, who was shown as the beneficiary. The money was duly received by M/s. Canara Bank corresponding to the said Letter of credit. HSL, however, had raised an objection to the said sale by Neeraj Sreevatsava in favour of China Railways and had lodged its protest with Canara Bank, calling upon the bank not to release payment under the Letter of Credit, while claiming that the sale was illegal and filed a First Information Report in FIR 9/2012 against NRR at Raipur, Chhattisgarh, while alleging that Neeraj Srivastava was its agent but was not authorized to sell the iron ore fines at the rate at which it was sold to China Railways. Consequent upon the FIR, the Civil Lines Police Station, Raipur, Chhattisgarh issued notices under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr. P.C.’, for brevity) to all the bankers of NRR, freezing the accounts of NRR. Neeraj Sreevastava was therefore, constrained to approach the High Court of Delhi, challenging the action of the Raipur Police and the said High Court is said to have issued notices. It is claimed that a First Informati