JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the cognizance taken by the Magistrate under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code and the order of commitment passed by the Seamed Magistrate on 3.3.1986. 2. According to the petitioner, police submitted charge-sheet against accused Trilochan Sahu u/s 489C of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order of commitment against the petitioner who was not charge-sheeted by the police. From the records of the case, it appears that the police tiled charge-sheet against accused Trilochan u/s 489C. but the Magistrate on perusal of the entire case diary came to the conclusion that there were prima facie materials against Trilochan, Dhruba (the present petitioner) and Bhaskar u/s 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said offence against there persons and issued summons fixing 5-10-1985 for their appearance by order dated 11.9.1985. Thereafter by order dated 3-3-1986 as the learned Magistrate found that the offences under Sections 489B/489C, Indian Penal Code, are exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the Court of Session 3. Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that u/s 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure- (hereinafter referred to as the Code the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to commit persons against whom police did not submit charge-sheet and therefore, the impugned order of commitment must be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, The correctness of the aforesaid submission has to be judged after taking into consideration some provisions of the Code. Chapter-XII of the Code deals with the powers of the police to investigate. Section 154 is the provision relating to information in respect of commission of a cognisable offence Section 757 is the procedure for investigation. Section 113 provides for submission of a report by the police officer on completion of investigation Chapter XIII of the Code deals with jurisdiction of criminal Courts for enquiries and trials. Chapter-XIV of the Code contains provisions which are pre-conditions for initiation of proceedings. Section 113 provides for submission of a report by the police officer on completion of investigation Chapter XIII of the Code deals with jurisdiction of criminal Courts for enquiries and trials. Chapter-XIV of the Code contains provisions which are pre-conditions for initiation of proceedings. The two important sections in the said Chapter with which we are concerned in the present case are Sections 190 and 193. Section 190 authorises a Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence either upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence or upon a police report of such facts or upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge that such offence has been committed. Section 193 empowers a Court of Session to take cognizance of an offence as a Court of original jurisdiction only when the case is committed to it by a Magistrate under the Code. Chapter-XVI deals with commencement of proceedings before the Magistrate and Section 207 is the procedure where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report and Section 208 is the procedure in a case instituted otherwise then on a police report Section 209 contained in the said Chapter is the provision for commitment of the case to the Court of Session when the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. A combined reading of all the aforesaid provisions, in my opinion, nowhere shows that the Magistrate's power u/s 190 of the Code is taken away to take cognizance of an offence in respect of a person whose name does not find place in the charge-sheet submitted by the police. The Magistrate takes cognizance against an offence and not against an offender. The true meaning of the phrase "taking cognizance of an offence is to take notice of an offence and includes the intention of initiating judicial proceedings against the offenders in respect of that offence. The Magistrate takes cognizance against an offence and not against an offender. The true meaning of the phrase "taking cognizance of an offence is to take notice of an offence and includes the intention of initiating judicial proceedings against the offenders in respect of that offence. When a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, which means, having applied his judicial mind to the papers submitted before him he decides to proceed in a particular way as indicated in the provisions under the Code, there is no embargo on has power to proceed against an accused against whom he finds prima facie materials in respect of the commission of the offence of which cognizance has been taken merely because the police has not submitted charge-sheet against the said accused person. When the Magistrate takes cognizance on the police report he takes cognizance of the offence and not merely of the particular person charged in the report as the offender. He can, therefore, issue process against other persons also who appear to him, on the basis of the report and other materials placed before him when he has taken cognizance of the case, to be concerned in the commission of the offence. This being the position, the Magistrate was fully empowered to take cognizance of the offences against the petitioner even though the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in the charge-sheet submitted by the police, by order dated 11.9.1985. The said order of the learned Magistrate had not been impugned in the present application. 4. The Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offences and after appearance of the accused before him, having come to the conclusion that the offences are triable exclusively by the Court of Session has committed the case to the Court of Session and in my opinion there is no legal infirmity in the same. The decision of the Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this view of the matter I do not find any justification to quash the order of commitment in exercise-of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. There is no merit In this application which is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed