HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P. No. 2993 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner/A6 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 IPC along with five others in CC No. 165 of 2006 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Originally, the case in crime No.81 of 2005 of White Collar Offences Team II, Detective Department, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad was registered against A1 to A6 for the said offences. After investigation, the police wanted to charge sheet A2 to A5 and wanted not to charge sheet A1 and A6 and filed final report/charge sheet accordingly before the Magistrate. The Magistrate after perusal of the charge sheet and the documents filed along with the charge sheet including statements of witnesses, took the case on file for the above offences against A1 to A6 and issued summons to A1 to A5 and non-bailable warrant to A6. It is stated that in pursuance of the said non-bailable warrant, A6 was arrested and was subsequently released on bail by the Magistrate. The petitioner/A6 questions taking cognizance of the case against her for the above said offences. 2. It is a case relating to fraud committed on M/s. G.E.Country-wide Financial Services Limited at Secunderabad. A-1 is Managing Director of M/s. ACER Motors Thirumulghiri, Secunderabad. M/s. Acer Motors is dealer in Maruthi Cars and also doing business in used cars. It was also appointed as Direct Selling Agent and responsible for securing the business of getting the customers, who are in need to take vehicles on loan and submit the connected documents of the customers to M/s. G.E. Country-wide Financial Services Limited for sanction of loan. It is alleged that A1 to A5 submitted forged and fake documents of RC Books and got the loans sanctioned in the name of customers without vehicles in some cases and second Hypothecation in some other cases and that A1 to A5 processed as many as 67 cases of fraud of false registration certificates resulting in disbursement of loans to the extent of Rs.1.04 crores to customers on the basis of fake registration certificates and fake documents. A- 6, who is the petitioner herein was working in M/s. G.E.Country-wide financial Services Limited during the relevant point of time. A-6 was impleaded in this crime as it was alleged that she was accommodating A1 to A5 while working in M/s. G.E.Country-wide Financial Services Limited in accepting the fake loan documents and giving loan cheques in the name of A-4 instead of the loanee. Basing on the statement of witness No.6 cited in the charge sheet, the Magistrate took the case on file against A-6 also, even though the police did not choose to charge sheet her and intended to refer the case against her. 3. Placing reliance on Sarabjit Sing V. State of Punjab [1] of the Supreme Court, it is contended that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 190 Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of offence against other accused than those against whom the charge sheet was filed by the police. In the decision cited supra (1), the question was relating to impleading a new accused in a Sessions Case during trial before the Court of Sessions even without the Magistrate taking cognizance of the case for the offences against the accused person. It is a decision rendered on scope of impleading a new accused person by the Sessions Court either under Section 193 Cr.P.C. before trial or under Section 319 Cr.P.C. during the course of trial and after commencing of trial. This decision is totally inapplicable to the facts situation prevailing in the case on hand. Scope of taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. is totally different from the scope of taking cognizance by a Sessions Court under Section 193 Cr.P.C. It is not as if the Investigating Officer/Police who are masters and who can control taking cognizance by the Magistrate for offences. The Magistrate cannot be a dumb witness for vagaries if any committed by the investigating agency. The Magistrate has got every power to check and correct mistakes if any, committed by the Investigating Officer in concluding the investigation by way of filing final report. It is not as if the Magistrate is bound to record final reports filed by the Investigating Officers under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In the case on hand, the Magistrate after exercising his jurisdiction under law, took cognizance of the case against A-6 also for the above offences. The police, according to the Magistrate, committed error in deleting A-6 from the case. Having regard to allegations levelled against A-6 in this case, the Magistrate is legally justified in taking cognizance of the case against A-6 also. I do not find any error in law or in jurisdiction committed by the Magistrate in this case. There are no legal or valid grounds for quashing the proceedings in so far as the petitioner/A6 is concerned. 4. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 30-09-2010 Mjl/* [1] 2009(3) ALT (Crl.) 61 (SC)