JUDGMENT

1. 1st petitioner common in both the petitions and petitioner No.2 in Writ Petition No.11399 of 2022, a representative of the 1st petitioner in the writ petition, who will be for the sake of convenience referred to as 'either the petitioner or the Company', are before this court in the subject petitions.

2. Petitioner in W.P.No.7499 of 2022 seeks quashment of all proceedings including investigation or any other proceedings taken against it and its officials emanating from ECIR/09/BZ/2012 and the petitioners in W.P.No.11399 of 2022 call in question an order dtd. 11/4/2022 by which the concerned Court takes cognizance of the offences against the petitioners and issues summons. In effect both these petitions arise out of common facts and grounds except a subsequent event dtd. 11/4/2022 being called in question in the latter petition. Therefore, both these petitions are taken together and considered by this common order.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petitions, as projected by the prosecution, are as follows:- 1st Petitioner is a public limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act , 1956 ('the Act' for short) and is in the business of manufacture of steel and has plant in several locations including the one at Vijayanagar in the name and style of JSW Steel Limited. The petitioner claims to be in the ordinary course of business having entered into a contract with M/s Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited ('OMC' for short) owned by Mr. G.Janardhana Reddy who was one of the Directors and owners of the said Company. The said contract was entered into between the OMC and the petitioner for supply of 1.5 million tons of iron ore, fines and lumps to the plant of the petitioner at Vijayanagar. The contract was signed on 16/11/2009. The petitioner claims to have made a payment of Rs.130.00 crores as advance towards the supply by way of bank transfer.

4. On and after March 2010 the OMC failed to supply iron ore to the petitioner in breach of the contract. The petitioner claims to have requested the said company for supply and on several requests supplies were made through its sister concerns and certain supplies of iron ore still remain due to the petitioner which the petitioner claims to be to the tune of Rs.35.45 crores. It is therefore, contended by the petitioner that the petitioner is a creditor of Mr. G.Janardhan Reddy, OMC and all its group companies/sister concerns. Several correspondences are produced to demonstrate the said aspect.

5. On 23/9/2011 the Apex Court in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 7366-7367 of 2010 ordered investigation by the CBI into the illegal mining and export of iron ore by the Associated Mining Company ('AMC' for short), a partnership concern of Mr. G.Janardhan Reddy. In compliance with the direction of the Apex Court, the CBI registered a FIR against 21 accused including AMC, its partners G.Janardhan Reddy, Smt. Lakshmi Aruna and others. The petitioner was nowhere in the picture at that juncture. On 30/5/2012 the CBI filed a charge sheet in RC 18(A)/2011 against Mr. G.Janardhan Reddy, Smt. Lakshmi Aruna and 5 other accused for offences punishable under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988. The petitioner again was not in the picture in the charge sheet filed by the CBI. Things standing thus, in view of the supplies not being made by OMC or AMC, arbitration proceedings were initiated by the petitioner/company against OMC for recovery of outstanding amount of Rs.35.44 crores and other damages. During the pendency of those proceedings on 25/9/2012 the respondent registered Enforcement Case Information Report ('ECIR') against Mr. G.Janardhan Reddy and Smt. Lakshmi Aruna and the competent Court took cognizance of the aforesaid charge sheet filed by the CBI. The petitioner again was not named in any of these proceedings.

6. On 6/9/2013, the CBI filed a supplementary report in RC18(A)/2011-CBI/BLR. It is here the name of the petitioner figures. After fili