ORDER.- These two revision petitions are directed against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, II Court, Bangalore, in a case under sections 419 and. 420 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code,, discharging the accused of these offences. 2. The prosecution case in brief was,, that during November, 1973 the accused approached, the petitioner M.N.A.Achar and made him to believe that the first accused Dr. D.L. Rajagopal was a bachelor and available for marriage with the daughter of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner and his daughter C.W. 5 consented to the marriage which took place at Srirangam or, 30tb November, 1973. The other four accused A-2 to A-5 actually participated in the marriage. They had also negotiated for the same and according to the petitioner abetted in the offences committed, by Dr. D.L. Rajagopal the first accused. Subsequently,, the petitioner-complainant and. his daughter learnt that A-1 was already married to one Kusumavati C.W. 6 and the said marriage was performed at Tirupati. It was stated that A-1 committed the offence of cheating by personation and was liable to be punished under section 419 of the Indian Penal Code. At the same nine,, he fraudulertly and dishonestly induced the petitioner-complainant and his daughter to perform the marriage of A-1 with the daughter C.W. 5 and there by caused damage of the body, mind and reputation of the father and of the body, mind and reputation of the girl C.W. 5. Thereby A-1 is stated to have committee 3 the offence of cheating as defined in section 415 and since He dishonestly induced the petitioner complainant to deliver a property, he is also liable for punishment foe the offence under section 420 of the Indian. Penal Code. With these allegations made in the police complaint, some investigation was made and finally the police submitted. a challan against A-1 and the other four accused persons under sections 419 and 420 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Magistrate however considered that the charges made out were groundless and hence he chose to discharge these accused under section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Both the State as well as the petitioner-complainant have felt aggrieved of that decision and have preferred the two present criminal petitions. 4. 3. The learned Magistrate however considered that the charges made out were groundless and hence he chose to discharge these accused under section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Both the State as well as the petitioner-complainant have felt aggrieved of that decision and have preferred the two present criminal petitions. 4. Since a common question of law and fact arises in these two petitions, these can be disposed of by a single judgment. 5. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Magistrate indicates that he was of the opinion that the offence of cheating by personation under section 416 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out because the identity of Dr. D.L. Rajagopal, being a Doctor bearing that name, was uniform all throughout. He never substituted himself to be somebody else nor did he pretend to be some other person.Therefore, the learned Magistrate concluded that the offence of cheating by personation was not made out. In respect of the offence of cheating under section 420, Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate seems to be of the opinion that unless some property was delivered at the instance of the accused and the marriage of the daughter could not amount to the delivery of any property to the accused at the instance of the father, that offence too was not made out. So saying the learned Magistrate held that the charges were groundless. 6. The allegations made in the complaint as well as the statements of the witnesses produced during investigation made out rather a simple case. The petitioner-complainart alleged thatA-1 as well as his other associates accused A-2 to A-5 approached both the father and daughter with the proposal of marriage. A representation was made that A-1 was a bachelor and since he was approved as such for the marriage, the petitioner-complainant and his daughter agreed to the proposal made. Thereafter, the marriage was performed. It was only subsequently that it was learnt that A-1 was already married to C.W. 6 and had even a child from her. During investigation C.W. 6 the alleged previous wife gave her statement. C.W. 8 and C.W. 10 are the persons from Tirupati who either performed the marriage or participated in it and in this manner they prima facie proved the marriage of A-1 with C.W. 6. During investigation C.W. 6 the alleged previous wife gave her statement. C.W. 8 and C.W. 10 are the persons from Tirupati who either performed the marriage or participated in it and in this manner they prima facie proved the marriage of A-1 with C.W. 6. C.W. 9 is a Medical Officer through whose agency A-1 tried for the transfer of himself and also of his previous wife C.W. 6 to one and the same place. Despite this evidence on record, the learned Magistrate seems to have inferred that “there was nothing on record to show that A-1 had married C.W. 6 before marrying C.W. 5”. That inference was decidedly not borne out from the evidence. The learned Magistrate has further remarked that it is not known whether the first marriage was performed according to the Hindu rites. That statement is again prima facie incorrect because of the version given by C.Ws. 8 and 10 as well as the allegations made in the complaint itself. 7. The very reasoning of the learned Magistrate that unless there was delivery of property to any person the offence of cheating could not be formulated, appears to be incorrect. A bare reading of section 415 of the Indian Penal Code will indicate that the person deceiving if he intentionally induces the person deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, he would none-the-less be guilty of the offence of cheating provided some damage or harm to that person is caused in body, mind, reputation or property. The learned Magistrate seems to have ignored the latter part of that section and accordingly held that unless there was any delivery of property to any person, the offence of cheating will not be made out.- In the instant case even that condition was satisfied as there was a delivery of property in the sense that the marriage was performed and some gift or treatment howsoever meagre must have been given to the bridegroom namely A-1. In that view of the matter, prima facie there was cheating inasmuch as these accused dishonestly induced the petitioner-complainant as well as his daughter to go into the ceremony of marriage with A-1. There was obviously damage or harm to the petitioner or his daughter in body, mind reputation or even property. In that view of the matter, prima facie there was cheating inasmuch as these accused dishonestly induced the petitioner-complainant as well as his daughter to go into the ceremony of marriage with A-1. There was obviously damage or harm to the petitioner or his daughter in body, mind reputation or even property. Upon this the learned Counsel contended that the offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code was made out. 8. As to the offence of cheating by personation, the complainant’s case was that A-1 claimed to be a bachelor which he was not and thereby represented himself to be a person other than he actually was. In that manner the offence of cheating by personation as defined in section 416 was purported to be made out. This offence is obviously punishable under section 419 of the Indian Penal Code. It may not be correct to say that simply because A-1 did not change his name at any occasion or remained the very same person, although assumed a different status or character according to his representation, the offence of cheating by personation could not be spelled out. 9. Under section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code the accused could only be discharged provided a categorical finding was given by the Magistrate that the charges were groundless. In order to hold a charge groundless, either there should have been no iota of evidence or the evidence produced should have centra indicated the offence or any other fundamental error to assume cognisance in the case should have been established. But what is contended on behalf of the accused is, that they may ultimately succeed in making out a defence in their favour and that may result in their acquittal. In my opinion that would not be the consideration for getting an order of discharge under section 239, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Counsel contended that the marriage as such with the first wife could not be proved. In that connection, the argument was that the marriage performed at Tirupati may not even be held to be a regular from of marriage. But the offence of cheating by personation or cheatingitself as defined in sections 415 and 416 of Indian Penal Code, in fact does not by itself depend upon the validity or otherwise of the first marriage so performed between A-1 and C.W. 6. But the offence of cheating by personation or cheatingitself as defined in sections 415 and 416 of Indian Penal Code, in fact does not by itself depend upon the validity or otherwise of the first marriage so performed between A-1 and C.W. 6. Rather this offence will depend upon the fraudulent and dishonest inducement made by the accused so that the petitioneromplainant or his daughter were deceived to do or omit to do anything on the representation made by A-1 of his being a bachelor and as such fit for marriage with the daughter of the petitioner-complainant. It may not be very material as to whether the first marriage was valid in the eye of law so long it was alleged that A-1 was keeping marital relationship with C.W. 6 and was no longer a bachelor so that he could be considered capable to marry the daughter of the petitionercomplainant. If that representation or inducement on the part of the accused is held to be fraudulent or dishonest and obviously it resulted in the performance of the marriage, perhaps it may be possible to infer that the offence of cheating by personation or of cheating simplicitor under sections 416 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out. 10. It is then contended by the learned Counsel that in case the offence under section 420 is not spelled cut and it is held that the offence of cheating simplicitor punishable under section 417, Indian Penal Code is proved, then, it would be a non-cognizable offence and the police were not to investigate such an offence without the specific direction by the Court. For that a reference may be made to section 2 (d) and section 155 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 2 (d) defines complaint and the explanation points out that a report made by the police officer in a case which discloses after investigation, the commission of a non-cogniizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant. The effect is obviously this, that the report made by the police officer shall be deemed to be a complaint made by such police officer who shall be the complainant. The effect is obviously this, that the report made by the police officer shall be deemed to be a complaint made by such police officer who shall be the complainant. Under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code if the police officer being a public servant is deemed to be a complainant, he need not be examined in Court. Under section 155 (4), if the case relates to two or more offences of which one is cognizable, the entire case is deemed to be a cognisable case. In the instant case if the offence under section 416 punishable under section 419, Indian Penal Code is made out, that would be a cognizable case and then perhaps any such irregularity as pointed out by the learned Counsel will no longer exist in view of subsection (4) of section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 11. Above all, whatever is submitted on behalf of the accused shall be available to them as and when the trial proceeds. Suffice it to say for the present that the police report as well as the documents sent with it under section 173 did make out prima facie the two offences imputed against the accused. As regards A-2 to A-5 there are allegations in the complaint as well as in the statements of witnesses that these accused actively participated in the commission of the two offences. It is also established that they were aware of the alleged first marriage of A-1 with C.W. 6 Kusumavati. As such, prima facie, they could also be indicted for the two offences with the aid of section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The order of discharge made by the learned Magistrate was obviously incorrect and has got to be set aside. 12. The two criminal revision petitions are therefore allowed and the order of discharge made by the learned Magistrate is set aside. The case is sent back for the framing of proper charges and thereafter for proceeding in accordance with law. 13. As pointed out by the learned Counsel, the hearing of the case may be entrusted to some other Magistrate other than the Metropolitan Magistrate, 11 Court, Bangalore, as the latter has already expressed some opinion in favour of the accused. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, will accordingly entrust the case to any other competent Magistrate within his jurisdiction.