ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed praying to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 23 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda, filed against the petitioner herein and six others for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420 and 468 of IPC. 2. Based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant that unscrupulous elements are indulging in sale of bogus certificate of Diploma in Public Hygiene and Sanitation Technology, awarded by the Institute of Public Health Hygiene, by collecting Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- from the candidates for the purpose of recruitment to the post of MPHA (M), a crime in Cr. No. 178/2002 was registered by the Assistant Sub Inspector, Miryalaguda Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420 and 468 IPC, and thereafter, he transferred the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Nalgonda, for further investigation, and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Nalgonda, having investigated the case, filed charge sheet. 3. Hence, the petitioner filed this criminal petition to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 23 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being an agent of the institutes, has nothing to do with the certificates issued by the college, and he has nothing to do with the offences alleged against him, he submits that since the offences alleged against him are said to have taken place in Miryalaguda, the officer-in-charge of the police station, namely the Sub-Inspector or the Circle Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda, as the case may be, alone is competent to investigate and file charge sheet, and inasmuch as, in the instant case, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Nalgonda, who is not in-charge of the police station where the offences alleged against him have taken place has investigated the case and filed charge sheet, the proceedings against him, have to be quashed both on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and locus standi. In support of his contention that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Nalgonda, not being an officer in whose local jurisdiction the offence took place, and he not being an officer superior in rank to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nalgonda, could not have investigated the case and filed charge sheet, placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in A. Omkar v. Commissioner of Police 1996 (4) ALT 733 (D.B.). 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that for speedy disposal of cases relating to misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, cheating, and chit funds/finance etc., the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, opened Economic Offences Wing at the district level in the month of July, 2002, and by virtue of powers conferred on him under Section 36 Cr.P.C. he delegated the powers of investigation of this case to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Nalgonda, and to support such statement, she produced copy of the proceedings. In C. No. 7/EOW/2002, dated 14-08-2002, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, delegating his powers of investigation under Section 36 Cr.P.C. to the Sub-Inspector, Economic Offences Wing, Therefore, the investigation conducted by and charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Nalgonda, is valid. In support of this contention, she placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Smt. Beebijan v. Superintendent of Police. 1992 (1) ALT 520 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The power of the police officer to investigate cognizable case is provided under Section 156 Cr.P.C. which reads: 156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case: (1) Any officer-in-charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police-officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this Section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. 8. (2) No proceeding of a police-officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this Section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. 8. A reading of sub-section (1) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. would make it clear that any officer-in-charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII, and under sub-section (2) therefore, no proceeding of such police officer shall be called in question on the ground that he is not empowered to investigate. The powers that are exercisable by a police officer under Section 156 Cr.P.C. may also be exercisable by superior officers as provided under Section 36 Cr.P.C. which states that police officer superior in rank to an officer-in-charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. 9. There can be no doubt that the offences alleged against the petitioner having taken place within the local area of Miryalaguda Police Station, under Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. the Sub-Inspector or the Circle Inspector of Miryalaguda Police Station, alone has jurisdiction to investigate the case, but under Section 36 Cr.P.C. the case registered against the petitioner can be investigated by an officer superior in rank to the Sub-lnspector or Circle Inspector of Police, who are in-charge of Miryalaguda Police Station. In the instant case, neither the Sub-inspector or the Circle Inspector, Miryalaguda Police Station nor an officer superior in rank to them, has investigated the case, but it was investigated by the Sub-Inspector, Economic Offences Wing, Nalgonda. In the instant case, neither the Sub-inspector or the Circle Inspector, Miryalaguda Police Station nor an officer superior in rank to them, has investigated the case, but it was investigated by the Sub-Inspector, Economic Offences Wing, Nalgonda. Though the petitioner contends that the Sub-Inspector, Economic Offences Wing, Nalgonda, has no jurisdiction or locus standi to investigate the case since the offences alleged against him have taken place within the jurisdiction of Miryalaguda Police Station the fact remains, the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, who is superior in rank to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda, has issued Memorandum in C. No. 702/DCRB/2002, dated 26-07-2002 and proceedings in C. No. 7/EOW/2002, dated 14-08-2002, opening an Economic Offences Wing, for speedy disposal of misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, chit fund/finance cases etc., which are pending in U.I. at the SHOs level and delegating the powers of investigation conferred on him under Section 36 Cr.P.C. to the Sub-Inspector, Economic Offences Wing. In view of said proceedings, the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Miryalaguda Police Station, immediately after registering the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, forwarded the complaint to the Sub-Inspector, Economic Offences Wing, Nalgonda for investigation, and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Nalgonda, having investigated the case, filed charge sheet. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court in Smt. Beebijan v. Superintendent of Police, wherein a contention was raised by the petitioners therein that the Station House Officer, Amberpet Police Station, and not the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell, C.I.D. Hyderabad, is the proper authority to investigate the offences under Sections 420, 498-A and 304-B read with 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Having regard to the provisions of Section 36 Cr.P.C. and the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 452, Home (Police-F) Department, dated 26-07-1986, creating a separate Cell in the C.B.C.I.D. to deal with crimes against women, this Court held that the Cell in the C.B.C.I.D. has got jurisdiction to investigate into the crimes registered in the police stations within its jurisdiction. No. 452, Home (Police-F) Department, dated 26-07-1986, creating a separate Cell in the C.B.C.I.D. to deal with crimes against women, this Court held that the Cell in the C.B.C.I.D. has got jurisdiction to investigate into the crimes registered in the police stations within its jurisdiction. In the instant case, the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, for speedy disposal of misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, cheating, and chit funds/finance cases, etc., which are pending in U.I. at the SHOs level in the district, has opened an economic offences wing and delegated his powers of investigation under Section 36 Cr.P.C. to the Sub-Inspector, Economic Offences Wing, Nalgonda, to investigate the offence. 10. inasmuch as the Sub-Inspector, Economic Offences Wing, Nalgonda, in pursuance of the powers so delegated by the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, who being an officer superior in rank to the Sub-Inspector or Circle Inspector, Miryalaguda Police Station, under Section 36 Cr.P.C. is empowered to investigate and exercise the power of a police officer as provided under Section 156 Cr.P.C. has investigated and filed charge sheet, no exception can be taken to the investigation made and charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Nalgonda, and the investigation of the case made by him, can neither be said to be without jurisdiction or can he said to have no locus standi to investigate the case and file charge sheet. 11. In the above view of the matter the criminal petition is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.