Judgment 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. 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 Information Report, in FIR 179/2012, is also similarly lodged against the petitioners in respect of the same transaction. 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 Information Report, in FIR 179/2012, is also similarly lodged against the petitioners in respect of the same transaction. It is further stated that Neeraj Srivatsa had also approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, questioning FIR 9/2012, as being without jurisdiction and the matter being purely of a civil nature and has obtained an interim order against HSL as well as the State of Chhattisgarh and the Inspector-in-charge of the Civil Line Police Station, Special Investigation Cell. It is thereafter that HSL has chosen to file a complaint against petitioner no.2 and others in FIR 179/2012 alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity). It is stated that pursuant to the filing of FIR 179/2012, the Chhattisgarh Police had placed several banks, which are named as respondents 5 to 44, on notice, under Sections 91 and 102 of the Cr. P.C, freezing the bank accounts of petitioner no.2, which are his personal accounts, as well as accounts relating to CMM. 4. Shri Anoop George Chaudhari, Senior Advocate appearing for the Counsel for the petitioners, contends that FIR 179/2012 is clearly mischievous and an abuse of process, as it relates to the very consignment namely, 41, 253 Metric Tonnes of iron ore fines carried on M.V Everbright, which was also the subject matter of FIR 9/2012 filed against Neeraj Sreevastava before the very same Police Station. It is contended that the registration of FIR 179/2012 and the consequent investigation by respect no.2 is illegal and without jurisdiction as no cause of action has accrued at Raipur. Admittedly, the contract of sale was executed at Goa. The goods were dispatched from Goa. It is contended that the registration of FIR 179/2012 and the consequent investigation by respect no.2 is illegal and without jurisdiction as no cause of action has accrued at Raipur. Admittedly, the contract of sale was executed at Goa. The goods were dispatched from Goa. Further, the contract was clearly a commercial transaction and the dispute sought to be raised, namely, that the contract entered into by CMM with HSL contemplated supply of iron ore fines with a minimum Fe content of a particular grade whereas the ore supplied was of very poor quality and that the CMM had managed to sell poor quality ore as being of contractual specifications, after having received huge advances, on the basis of a false and forged Quality Analysis Certificate and therefore, had committed offences as alleged. The learned Senior Advocate would submit that these allegations are, at best, of an alleged breach of contract and cannot be construed as criminal offences. It is contended that just as in FIR 9/2012, the intention of the complainant is to bring relentless pressure on petitioner nos.1 and 2 by freezing all the bank accounts, including the personal accounts of petitioner no.2, with the active connivance of the Raipur Police. The action of the Police, in turn, by issuing notices to the several bankers under Section 91 and 102 of the Cr.P.C. is contrary to the scope of those sections and the same being exercised by the Police, without even the supervision of a court, indicates an unholy nexus between HSL and the Police, which has brought financial ruin on petitioners 1 and 2. The primary requirement in seeking to freeze the bank accounts of petitioner nos.1 and 2, was to establish a direct nexus between the accounts frozen and the alleged crime, which is totally absent. The claim by HSL that a huge advance of Rs.26.50 Crore was paid to CMM, which does not even correspond to the quantity that was agreed to be sold, as the said sum exceeds the contractual rate by more than Rs.2 Crore, is not evidenced by any document disclosing such payment by HSL and receipt by CMM or petitioner no.2. It is also evidence that the Raipur Police had no jurisdiction to direct seizure of such bank accounts outside their jurisdiction. 5. It is also evidence that the Raipur Police had no jurisdiction to direct seizure of such bank accounts outside their jurisdiction. 5. The learned Senior Advocate, who also appears for the Counsel for the petitioners in the second of these writ petitions, would submit that apart from the personal bank accounts of petitioner no.2 and the bank accounts of CMM, the bank accounts of various other entities, in which petitioner no.2 is even remotely involved, has also been frozen, which is, on the face of it, further evidence of the illegal manner in which the Raipur Police have acted on the very same First Information Report lodged by HSL and as there is no basis for seeking such seizure of the bank accounts, when there is no contractual relationship between HSL and those entities, the entire action is clearly illegal and requires to be quashed on that ground alone. 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Advocate Shri Ravi B. Naik, appearing for the Counsel for respondent no.4, in support of statement of objections filed, would contend that the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is stated that this court could exercise such jurisdiction within the State of Karnataka and therefore, the First Information Report, which has been lodged before the Civil Lines Police Station, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, sought to be questioned, is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is also contended that no cause of action has arisen in the State of Karnataka and therefore, it is also one other ground, on which the petitions have to be rejected. It is also brought to the attention of this court that petitioner no.4 had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, before the High Court of Goa, to quash FIR 283/2011, which was lodged by a sister concern of HSL. Notices having been issued in the said petition, a preliminary objection had been raised as to the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash the First Information Report registered at Raipur in Chhattisgarh State. The High Court of Goa had directed petitioner no.4 to be present before the court. Notices having been issued in the said petition, a preliminary objection had been raised as to the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash the First Information Report registered at Raipur in Chhattisgarh State. The High Court of Goa had directed petitioner no.4 to be present before the court. An application for withdrawal of the petition was filed by petitioner no.4 and it was specifically stated that in view of an objection raised as to the jurisdiction of the Goa High Court, the petitioner would approach the High Court at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh State. The learned Senior Advocate would, therefore, contend that petitioner no.4 had accepted the jurisdiction of the High Court at Bilaspur insofar as the First Information Report registered at Raipur is concerned. By the same token of reasoning, the petitioner cannot maintain this petition before this court, as it is admitted by petitioner no.4 that it is the High Court at Bilaspur which may have jurisdiction to consider the grant of relief sought for by the petitioners. On facts, the learned Senior Advocate would submit that the petition does not narrate the true and correct facts. The agreement between respondent no.4 and petitioner no.1 dated 7.5.2011 was for the sale of 1,10,000 Wet Metric Tonnes of iron ore by petitioner no.1. It was agreed that the Fe content would be not less than 52% of the said iron ore fines. In terms of the contract, HSL had paid an amount of Rs.26.50 Crore as advance. This amount was transferred to the bank account of petitioner no.1. However, petitioner no.1 had supplied only 41,253 Wet Metric Tonnes of iron ore on the cargo ship M.V. Everbright. A Quality Certificate dated 28.6.2011 was issued by M/s. Geo Chem Laboratory Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Geo Chem’, for brevity) Goa, certifying that the ore supplied by petitioner no.1 had an Fe content of 53.69%. However, when the goods reached China and on an analysis, it was found that the Fe content of the iron ore was only 41.21%. A copy of such certificate by a Chinese Governmental Agency is produced. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners, in connivance with the employees of Goa-Chem, a certifying Laboratory, particularly, one K.J. Rao, had defrauded HSL, of huge sums of money and the consequent losses amount t about Rs.52 Crore. A copy of such certificate by a Chinese Governmental Agency is produced. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners, in connivance with the employees of Goa-Chem, a certifying Laboratory, particularly, one K.J. Rao, had defrauded HSL, of huge sums of money and the consequent losses amount t about Rs.52 Crore. It is in that background that a written complaint was filed with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and a First Information Report was registered. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Naik, would also point out that the main controversy is as regards the quality of the iron ore and not the quantity and nowhere in the petition have the petitioners indicated that the iron ore supplied was as per the contractual specifications nor has the Quality Certificate, issued by the Chinese Agency, been disputed. It is further contended that the petitioners claimed that the offence registered in FIR 283/2011 filed by a sister concern of HSL, namely, Shivnath Minerals and Chemicals (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘SMC’ for brevity), is in no way connected with the First Information Report filed against petitioner no.1. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Naik, would submit that this is a false and incorrect statement. Petitioners 2 and 4 were arraigned as the accused in that case as they had undertaken to ensure the quality of iron ore supplied under a contract, which was the subject matter of that complaint, which is pending investigation. Insofar as the contention that HSL has duplicated its complaint in FIR 57/2012 brought against one Neeraj Sreevastava and the First Information Report filed against the present petitioners and that there are contradictory claims in the two First Information Report, firstly, that the iron ore fines, which is the subject matter of controversy, had been sold on the high seas to Neeraj Sreevastava when the goods were on board the ship M.V. Everbright and destined for China from Goa and at the same time, in FIR 179/2012 against the petitioners, it has been stated that the iron ore is lying at a Chinese port, is explained by the learned Senior Advocate by the circumstance that HSL had entered into a contract of sale with Neeraj Sreevastava on 6.1.2012 and it is in respect of offences committed by the said Sreevastava under that contract, that FIR 57/2012 was registered on a complaint dated 13.2.2012. In the background that Sreevastava had sold away iron ore in contravention of the terms of the contract between HSL and himself and it was the allegation of HSL that the iron ore had been sold to a Chinese buyer. As on 6.1.2012, the iron ore was in fact lying idle at China when the subsequent First Information report, namely, FIR 57/2012 was filed and the iron ore had been fraudulently sold by Sreevastava, when he was not specifically authorized to do so. Therefore, it is contended that the two complaints are in respect of two independent offences committed by the petitioners on the one hand and Sreevastava on the other. The two complaints are, therefore, perfectly maintainable. It is contended that the petition also draws inaccurate and incomplete reference to three First Information Reports. It is true that there are three First Information Reports registered with the Raipur Police Station, namely, FIR 283/2011, FIR 179/2012 and FIR 57/2012. FIR 283/2011 is registered on 29.8.2011 in respect of an agreement dated 2.6.2011 between one Dream Logistics Company (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘DLC’ for brevity) and SMC. Under the agreement, DLC was to supply SMC 56,450 Dry Metric Tonnes of iron ore fines. The agreement required an Fe content at 52% and the goods were supplied on the basis of a Quality Certificate issued by one Intertek India Private Limited (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Intertek’, for brevity), which had duly certified that the Fe content was 52%. However, when the iron ore reached China, a Governmental Agency of China had certified that the Fe content was only 42.02%. Petitioners 2 and 4 were also involved in that contract as they had guaranteed the quality of iron ore supplied to SMC. Therefore, FIR 283/2011 is filed not only against the directors of DLC and Intertek, but also petitioners 2 and 4. FIR 57/2012 and FIR 179/2012 are filed in the circumstances stated hereinabove. Hence, there is no overlapping or duplication of the complainants. They pertain to three distinct transactions though involving the petitioners amongst others. The primary complaint of the petitioners that pursuant to the investigation initiated by the competent Police, the bank accounts of the petitioners have been frozen and that the Police did not have the authority to do so that it is being done without the supervision of the court, is an incorrect statement. The primary complaint of the petitioners that pursuant to the investigation initiated by the competent Police, the bank accounts of the petitioners have been frozen and that the Police did not have the authority to do so that it is being done without the supervision of the court, is an incorrect statement. According to HSL, it has been reliably learnt that a report under Section 102 of the Cr. P.C., has been filed with the concerned Magistrate in respect of such freezing of the accounts. Since petitioners 1 and 2 have received huge sums of money from HSL and the amounts have been promptly disbursed to various bank accounts of concerns, in which, petitioner no.2 has a financial and controlling interest and the fact that there are innumerable bank accounts, either individually or in association with others by petitioner no.2, requires the same to be salvaged. For the otherwise, the illegal gains obtained by petitioner no.2 by his acts of fraud, would be irretrievably secreted. Incidentally, petitioner no.2 is said to have approached the apex court seeking transfer of the case to a court in the State of Goa, which was dismissed, thereby affirming the fact that the Police authorities at Raipur had the requisite jurisdiction to investigate the case as a part of the cause of action did arise at Raipur. The incidental submission that the transaction is purely a commercial transaction and the dispute is of a civil nature etc., is also not significant, as the transaction, though of a commercial nature, has given rise to both civil and criminal liability. Hence, the exchange of notices regarding arbitration proceedings is not material. It is also brought to the attention of this court that insofar as FIR 283/2011where petitioner no.2 is arraigned as an accused, a non-bailable warrant has been issued, which to this day, has not been recalled and therefore, the petitioner, who has not chosen to abide by the law, should not be assisted by this court by considering the present petition. 7. Respondents 1 and 2 have also filed statement of objections. 8. The learned Government pleader Shri Gotkhindi P.H. appearing for these respondents reiterates the preliminary objections raised by respondent no.4 as to the maintability of the petition. Even on facts, the assertions on behalf of respondent no.4 are endorsed. 7. Respondents 1 and 2 have also filed statement of objections. 8. The learned Government pleader Shri Gotkhindi P.H. appearing for these respondents reiterates the preliminary objections raised by respondent no.4 as to the maintability of the petition. Even on facts, the assertions on behalf of respondent no.4 are endorsed. It is emphasized that there is no basis for an allegation of an unholy nexus by the Raipur Police with respondent no. 4. It is highlighted that the police are required in law to investigate any and every offence that may be registered with them and the bona fide performance of its statutory duties cannot be characterized as being illegal. The credibility of petitioner No. 2 is questioned in having named petitioner no.3 as one of the petitioners. The learned Government Pleader draws attention to an affidavit of the said petitioner no. 3, who has disowned the present petition and has declared that he has no knowledge of the same having been filed. It is contended that in so far as the freezing of the bank accounts are concerned, it is claimed that it has been done in accordance with law. It is claimed that petitioner no.1 has received crores of rupees from respondent no.4, as said to be evidenced by Annexure-R.7 to the Statement of objections. It is further stated that such action was necessary to prevent the said money from being siphoned through various bank accounts leaving no trace of the same. It is also stated that the apprehension of respondent no.4 of such mischief is found to have been confirmed by the conduct of petitioner no.2. Attention is drawn to Annexure-R.8 to indicate the trail of disbursements of such funds from the accounts of petitioners 1 and 2 to various accounts. It is asserted that it is only because a direct nexus is discernible between the offence complained of and the bank accounts that such action has been undertaken. It is also contended that reports in this regard have been submitted to the competent court at Raipur, dated 3.7.2012, copies of which are produced at Annexure-R.9. 9. It is asserted that it is only because a direct nexus is discernible between the offence complained of and the bank accounts that such action has been undertaken. It is also contended that reports in this regard have been submitted to the competent court at Raipur, dated 3.7.2012, copies of which are produced at Annexure-R.9. 9. By way of reply, the Senior Advocate Shri Chaudhari would contend that in so far as the matters being without the jurisdiction of this court is concerned, having regard to the circumstance that the bank accounts, both current and savings accounts, of the petitioners 1 and 2 held in accounts with banks in and around Belgaum, have been frozen with out any prima facie material of the alleged amount of Rs.26.50 crore having been paid in advance to petitioner no.1, the funds available in the accounts of the Petitioners 1 & 2 cannot even be claimed as the proceeds received from HSL. A perusal of Annexures-R.7 and R.8 does not disclose the receipt of Rs.26.50 crore from HSL at all. It is hence futile to draw attention to transactions carried on by the petitioners in their usual course of business as surreptitious and fraudulent money transfers to the detriment of HSL. It is hence asserted that the action of the Raipur police being ex-facie illegal and the effect being felt in Karnataka by petitioner no.1 and 2 are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this court. This issue, it is contended, is no longer res integra. Majithya’s case ( 2000 (7) SCC 640 ) is cited in support of the proposition. It is contended that in so far as the reference to Petitioner no.4 having conceded before the High Court at Goa, as to the High Court at Bilaspur having jurisdiction in respect of the proceedings that were under challenge therein is with reference to FIR 283/2011 and not FIR 179/2012 with which the present petitioners are concerned. In so far as the affidavit of petitioner no.3 disowning the petition is concerned, the learned Senior Advocate would request this court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the concerned respondents. It is alleged that the affidavit was obtained under duress and draws attention to an affidavit filed by petitioner no.3 now before this court dated 27.7.2012. In so far as the affidavit of petitioner no.3 disowning the petition is concerned, the learned Senior Advocate would request this court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the concerned respondents. It is alleged that the affidavit was obtained under duress and draws attention to an affidavit filed by petitioner no.3 now before this court dated 27.7.2012. It is contended that there is no basis for the claim that petitioner has been paid an advance of Rs.26.50 crore under the contract in question. Only a sum of Rs.7 crore has been paid, which is far below the value of ore already supplied. It is reiterated that it is HSL which has committed a breach of contract in respect of which the petitioner no.1 had already issued a notice invoking the arbitration clause in terms of the contract. It is contended that the alleged compliance with Section 102 Cr. P.C. by the Raipur police as per Annexure-R.9 is not in accordance with law. Section 102 (3) Cr. PC requires the police to forthwith report the seizure of property to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. In this case the property concerned are bank accounts of Petitioner no.2 in Belgaum, Goa and Bangalore. The so called compliance before the Court in Raipur, Chattisgarh on 3.7.2011 was hence, neither done forthwith nor within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. 10. In the second of these petitions, the petitioners are seven in number, five of whom are private limited companies and two are partnership firms. It is their case that the two partnership firms are represented by Ghotage. It is the case of the petitioners that in respect of the very contract between CMM and HSL, pursuant to FIR 179/2012 before the Raipur Police, the said police have proceeded to initiate the proceedings insofar as these petitions are concerned under Sections 91 and 102 of the Cr. P.C. It is contended that the petitioners are independent legal entities and therefore, have no connection with the commercial transaction between HSL and CMM and hence, the memo issued by the Raipur Police to the various banks, in which the petitioners hold accounts to freeze those accounts is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioners have furnished the details of the accounts and the banks in which each of the petitioners are operating the accounts at Annexure-C to the writ petition. The petitioners have furnished the details of the accounts and the banks in which each of the petitioners are operating the accounts at Annexure-C to the writ petition. The mere fact that Ghotage, as an individual, may have an interest in these companies or firms does not justify the Raipur Police in taking an extreme step of freezing the bank accounts of the petitioners, unless a direct nexus is established insofar as the commission of the offence alleged and the monies of the petitioners held in their bank accounts is established. The claim of the Raipur Police that the investigations have revealed that monies paid by HSL under the contract was on a fraudulent inducement of an assured supply of iron ore fines as per the contractual specifications and that such advances paid have been disbursed by Ghotage in the accounts of the petitioners etc., is not borne out by any material produced on record. It is also denied that such action is not justified with reference to yet another FIR in 283/2011 said to have been initiated by SMC, with which, the petitioners have no business transaction. A reference to the same in the notices and memos issued by the Raipur Police is therefore irrelevant. The petitioners plead that on account of such illegal action by the Raipur Police, the business of the petitioners may be brought to a total halt and may result in financial ruin. When the dispute raised by HSL is purely of a commercial nature and in the absence of any direct involvement of the petitioners in that transaction, on mere allegations of monies being routed into the accounts of these petitioners, such extreme action being taken against the entities, which are not within the jurisdiction of the criminal courts at Raipur and which entities however are within the jurisdiction of this court, warrants the interference of this court in order to protect the rights of these petitioners. 11. Objections have been filed on behalf of HSL. 11. Objections have been filed on behalf of HSL. The jurisdiction of this court to entertain the writ petition is raised on the ground that the Raipur Police is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this court and that the claim of the petitioners that since the bank accounts held in banks within the jurisdiction of this court are sought to be frozen, does not extend such jurisdiction to bank accounts that are outside the State of Karnataka. While reiterating the particulars of the various contracts and events, as narrated in the first of these petitions, it is asserted that the action taken by the Police is in accordance with law and it is reiterated that since Ghotage has routed the monies received by him by playing fraud on CMM, the action taken against the petitioners was warranted. In the face of the admitted circumstance that Ghotage holds an interest in all the petitioner-entities is sufficient nexus to enable the Police authorities to have taken action. The Raipur Police represented by the Government Pleader has reiterated similar objections. 12. The above narrative was not really necessary in view of the circumstance that the challenge in the present proceedings is primarily against the action of the Raipur Police, who, it is alleged, have in the course of their investigation pursuant to FIR 179/2012, over-reached their authority in seeking to freeze the bank accounts of the several petitioners, not only in the banks within the State of Karnataka, but elsewhere as well. Insofar as the factual matrix and the points on which the parties are at issue are concerned, are incidental. Insofar as the factual matrix and the points on which the parties are at issue are concerned, are incidental. Though elaborate arguments have been canvassed on the very competence of the Raipur Police to have entertained the First Information Report and to have initiated proceedings as well as other preliminary objections on various other aspects, such as the investigation by the Raipur Police in respect of the dispute being without jurisdiction, on the ground that the contract between CMM and HSL, for the supply of iron ore fines dated 7.5.2011, having been entered into at Goa and the goods in question having been shipped from Goa and that no cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the State of Chhattisgarh or that the matter being of a purely civil in nature as it pertained to an alleged breach of contract and no criminal offence could be made out on the basis of the averments in the complaint; nor the primary allegation that a huge advance of over Rs.26 Crore had been paid to CMM by HSL and in order to recover the same, the various bank accounts of the several petitioners being frozen, was not even evidenced by any document of such payment having been made in the first instance; nor that pursuant to the supply of goods by CMM, HSL having transacted with one Neeraj Sreevastava of the very goods and thereby absolving CMM of all liability insofar as the goods are concerned; nor the controversy as regards the goods not conforming to the contractual specifications and the alleged fraud having been committed by the production of a false Quality Analysis Certificate in respect of the goods by CMM; nor the circumstance that even if there was an alleged fraud committed by CMM and Ghotage, it did not justify the freezing of the bank accounts of other entities, merely on some remote relationship being found between the several entities and Ghotage etc., and notwithstanding the elaborate arguments canvassed by the learned Senior Advocates referred to hereinabove, this court is all too aware of the limited scope of inquiry in these proceedings and therefore, would restrict the consideration of these petitions to certain elementary aspects. The following view of the apex Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. J.A.C. Saldanha, 1981 SCC 544 , is a guideline:- “25. The following view of the apex Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. J.A.C. Saldanha, 1981 SCC 544 , is a guideline:- “25. There is a clear-cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive which is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed it is its bounden duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed and the investigating officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code its duty comes to an end. On a cognizance of the offence being taken by the Court the police function of investigation comes to an end subject to the provision contained in Section 173(8), there commences the adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether an offence has been committed and if so, whether by the person or persons charged with the crime by the police in its report to the Court, and to award adequate punishment according to law for the offence proved to the satisfaction of the Court. There is thus a well defined and well demarcated function in the field of crime detection and its subsequent adjudication between the police and the Magistrate. This had been recognized way back in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1944 PC 18 where the Privy Council observed as under: “In India, as has been shown, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however, the Court’s functions being when a charge is preferred before it, and not until then. 26. This view of the Judicial Committee clearly demarcates the functions of the executive and the judiciary in the field of detection of crime and its subsequent trial and it would appear that the power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by the judiciary.” Further, having regard to the stage of the proceedings, the following words of caution, as expressed by the apex court in the case of State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 22, is also kept in view:- “68. Another crucial question is whether the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, would interfere and quash the charge-sheet. The High Court found that the documents relied on by the respondents/accused were not denied by the State by filing the counter-affidavit. Therefore, they must be deemed to have been admitted. On that premise the High Court found that no prima facie case was made out on merits and chances of ultimate conviction is “bleak”. The court is not passive spectator in the drama of illegalities and injustice. The inherent power of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is permitted to be resorted to. When the documents relied on by the respondents “demonstrate that no prima facie offence is made out on the face value of those materials, then the criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue and so it should be quashed”, and “in such a situation and circumstances the petitioners who had got a right under the Constitution for the protection of their liberty have rightly approached this Court and this Court in these circumstances has no option but to grant the relief by quashing the FIR and both the charge-sheets”. Accordingly it quashed them. Accordingly it quashed them. If this decision is upheld, in my considered view startling and disastrous consequence would ensue. Quashing the charge-sheet even before cognizance is taken by a criminal court amounts to “killing a stillborn child”. Till the criminal court takes cognizance of the offence there is no criminal proceedings pending. I am not allowing the appeals on the ground that alternative remedies provided by the Code as a bar. It may be relevant in an appropriate case. My view is that entertaining the writ petitions against charge-sheet and considering the matter on merit in the guise of prima facie evidence to stand an accused for trial amounts to pre-trial of a criminal trial under Article 226 or 227 even before the competent Magistrate or the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the offence. Once the proceedings are entertained the further proceedings get stayed. Expeditious trial of a criminal case is the cardinal rule. Delay feeds injustice to social order and entertaining writ petitions would encourage to delay the trial by diverse tricks. It is not to suggest that under no circumstances a writ petition should be entertained. As was rightly done by Rajasthan High Court in this case at the instance of the directors of the company, wisdom lies to keep the hands back and relegate the accused to pursue the remedy under the Code. In several cases this Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the sole ground of delay. In a case FIR filed in 1954 for violation of the provisions of the Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was challenged in the Allahabad High Court. It was deliberately kept pending in the High Court and in this Court till 1990. The accusation was violation of law by named persons in the name of non-existing firm. The FIR was quashed in the year 1990 by another Bench of which I was a member solely on the ground of delay. He achieved his object of avoiding punishment. This would show that an accused with a view to delay the trial, resorts to writ proceedings, raises several contentions including one on merit as vehemently persisted by Sri Jain to consider this case on merits and have the proceedings kept pending. The result would be that the people would lose faith in the efficacy of rule of law. This would show that an accused with a view to delay the trial, resorts to writ proceedings, raises several contentions including one on merit as vehemently persisted by Sri Jain to consider this case on merits and have the proceedings kept pending. The result would be that the people would lose faith in the efficacy of rule of law. Documents relied on by the respondents are subject to proof at the trial and relevancy. If proved to be true and relevant then they may serve as a defence for the respondents at the trial. The State quite legitimately and in my view rightly did not choose to file the counter-affidavit denying or contradicting the version of the respondents, in those documents. The commission of offence cannot be decided on affidavit evidence. The High Court has taken short course “in annihilating the still born prosecution” by going into the merits on the plea of proof of prima facie case and adverted to those facts and gave findings on merits. Grossest error of law has been committed by the High Court in making pre-trial of a criminal case in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. After the charge-sheet was filed, the FIR no longer remains sheet-anchor. The charge-sheet and the evidence placed in support thereof form the base to take or refuse to take cognizance by the competent court. It is not the case that no offence has been made out in the charge-sheets and the first information report. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider all the decisions dealing with the scope of the power of the High Court either under Section 482 Cr. P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the first information report.” Therefore, this court does not choose to address the rival contentions, on factual aspects of the matter. It is evident that this court has entertained the present petitions on the primary grievance of the petitioners that the Raipur Police have compelled the several banks, where the petitioners hold bank accounts within the jurisdiction of this court, to freeze the operation of the accounts. It is evident that this court has entertained the present petitions on the primary grievance of the petitioners that the Raipur Police have compelled the several banks, where the petitioners hold bank accounts within the jurisdiction of this court, to freeze the operation of the accounts. The entertainment of the writ petitions has been questioned by the respondents on the question of jurisdiction and it is particularly sought to be canvassed that even according to the petitioners, the contractual relationship was created in the State of Goa and the transaction has taken place in the State of Goa and that the cause of action, if any, would be only in that State and therefore, the mere fact that there are banks, in which accounts are held by the petitioners within the jurisdiction of this court, would hardly afford jurisdiction in respect of the transaction or in respect of the proceedings initiated by the Raipur Police, who are outside the jurisdiction of this court. This aspect of the matter is no longer res integra, since Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India clearly would afford jurisdiction to this court. If it is an admitted fact that the bank accounts of the petitioners held by them in banks within jurisdiction of this court are involved, it could then be said that the cause of action for the petitioners has arisen partly within the jurisdiction of this court. This is affirmed in several decisions of the apex Court. The next question then would be whether this court can exercise its power in the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of power by the Raipur Police in granting relief, even partially in favour of the petitioners. This would require this court to address the controversy whether there is a direct nexus established insofar as the alleged advances paid by HSL to CMM and whether the said advances were received by CMM and Ghotage and the same are sought to be secreted by disbursing such advance amounts in the various bank accounts that are sought to be frozen. It is not in dispute that the Police are yet to submit a final report to the jurisdictional court and even if it can be held by this court that the Raipur Police have over-reached their authority and are actively conniving with HSL, in proceeding against the several petitioners, without any semblance of a relationship being established as between the several petitioners and CMM or Ghotage and the transactions concerned, it would be premature for this court to adjudicate on the factual aspects of the matter. Having regard to the several disputed issues between the parties and the transactions as well as the parties being spread over several States and the proceedings having been initiated before the Raipur Police in Chhattisgarh State and if those proceedings are the main concern, when a part of the cause of action that affords jurisdiction to this court, being only a fall out of the said proceedings, this court will have to remind itself that a partial cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of this court cannot be considered to be a determinative factor compelling it to decide the issues on merits and therefore, on the doctrine of forum conveniens, (See: Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited vs. Union of India, (2004)6 SCC 254 ; Bhagat Singh Bugga vs. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, AIR 1941 Cal.670; Madanlal Jalan vs. Madanlal, AIR 1949 Cal.495; Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs. Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage (P) Limited, 1997 CWN 122; S.S.Jain and Company vs. Union of India, (1994)1 CHN 445, and New Horizons Limited vs. Union of India, AIR 1994 Del.126.), it is more appropriate for the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of such other High Court, which would be competent to address all aspects of the matter, if at all, vis-à-vis the Raipur police and its actions, given the nascent stage of the pending proceedings. Consequently, both these petitions are dismissed. The interim orders granted earlier stand dissolved.