( 1 ) BOTH the petitions are filed by M/s. Leader Capital services India Private Limited (hereafter called, the Company), its Managing Director and employees. Both the cases are filed praying this Court to quash criminal cases filed against them. Therefore, it is proper to dispose of both the matters by common order. ( 2 ) THE events leading to filing the criminal cases being the same, the fact of the matter as disclosed in Criminal Petition no. 4751 of 2003 may be noticed. The second respondent (hereafter called, the complainant) filed a private complaint on the file of the Court of the XI Metropolitan magistrate, Secunderabad, alleging that he is not having educational qualifications though he is literate and he has to knowledge about financial investments, trade or business. The complainant is having acquaintance with third petitioner (third accused), whom he met in October, 2002. The third accused induced the complainant to invest money in the company informing that the second petitioner, who is Managing director, is an expert in international trade and that the company is likely to make huge profits and that the complainant would get a return of interest at 36% per annum on the investment. Believing the third petitioner, the complainant gave a sum of rs. 6,00,000/- on 4-12-2002 in the presence of petitioners 2 and 4 and one G. Ramji bapuji, The third accused paid a sum of rs. 5,000/- as a return for one day promising that the investment would reap huge profits periodically. But thereafter, in spite of enquiries, except assuring that the investment is safe, the account was not settled by the accused. In January, 2003, the complainant requested accused Nos. 2 to 4 to settle his account and repay the investment, in vain, though the accused promised to return the amount within ten days. The complainant also alleged that the first petitioner cheated many investors with dishonest intention and false representation. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate referred the complainant to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C.) for investigation, who registered the crime under Section 420 of indian Penal Code, i860 (IPC) being Crime no. 294 of 2003. In Criminal Petition no. 4752 of 2003, the petitioner prayed to quash Crime No. 295 of 2003. P. C.) for investigation, who registered the crime under Section 420 of indian Penal Code, i860 (IPC) being Crime no. 294 of 2003. In Criminal Petition no. 4752 of 2003, the petitioner prayed to quash Crime No. 295 of 2003. In the said case, the complaint was filed by one K. V. Ramadevi making similar allegations and also alleging that the accused induced her to part with Rs. 5,00,000/- and misappropriated the investment and also cheated her. ( 4 ) THE notices ordered by this Court are duly served on the respondents. Sri K. R. Raman, Advocate, who filed vakalat for the second respondent in both the cases, is not present when the case was heard. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri M. Naga Raghu, submits that the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, secunderabad, committed error in referring the complaint to the police under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. , though there was no material for doing so. In the absence of the material or necessary allegation in the complaint, the learned Magistrate ought not to have entertained the private complaint. He nextly contends that the ingredients of cheating are absent in the allegations and therefore the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not made out. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Ganesh das v. State of Kerala, 1996 Crl. LJ 612, guruduth Prabhu v. M. S. Krishna Bhat, 1999 Crl. LJ 3909, Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U. P. , 2001 Crl. LJ 3363 and Anne reddy v. State of A. P. , 2002 (2) ALT (Crl.) 532 (AP ). ( 6 ) THE submission that the learned magistrate erred in referring the complaint to police is misconceived. Chapter XV of cr. P. C. , deals with "complaints to magistrates". When a complaint is filed before the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 190 and 200 of Cr. P. C. , the Magistrate may examine the complainant on oath and also examine the witnesses present before taking cognizance immediately. Under Section 202 (1) of Cr. P. C. , the Magistrate may postpone the issue of summons/warrant/process and direct investigation by police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not to take cognizance of the offence. Be it noted, under Section 190 of Cr. Under Section 202 (1) of Cr. P. C. , the Magistrate may postpone the issue of summons/warrant/process and direct investigation by police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not to take cognizance of the offence. Be it noted, under Section 190 of Cr. P. C. , a Magistrate of First Class may take cognizance of offence upon receiving a complaint of facts, which constitute such offence, upon a police report and/or upon information received by any person other than the police officer. If one reads Sections 190, 200 and 202 of cr. P. C. , together, one of the conditionalities for taking cognizance is a "complaint of facts constituting offence". If a Magistrate thinks that the complaint made contains allegations of commission of offence as defined in Indian Penal Code or other law in force, the Magistrate may straightaway take cognizance of the offence after examining the complainant or witnesses as the case may be on oath. In case, the Magistrate does not want to issue summons or warrant immediately, he may direct investigation by the police officer. Section 156 of Cr. P. C. , empowers a police officer in charge of Police Station to investigate any cognizable offence also on an order by the Magistrate to investigate into a complaint. In what sort of cases and circumstances, the Magistrate is entitled to direct the police to investigate into the complaint under Section 202 (1) of Cr. P. C. There is nothing in the text of the law which requires the Magistrate to elaborately consider the complaint before passing an order directing the police to investigate under section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C, As mentioned above, if a complaint discloses the commission of offence, that itself would be sufficient for the Magistrate to order investigation by police. The law does not require the Magistrate to record elaborate reasons, however, complicated the allegations may be. ( 7 ) THE decision in Ganesh Das v. State of Kerala (supra), rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court is to the effect that under sub-section (3) of Section 156 of cr. P. C. , the Magistrate cannot direct the police to register First Information Report. This authority is of no assistance to the petitioners for the XI Metropolitan magistrate, Secunderabad, essentially directed the police to investigate the crime. P. C. , the Magistrate cannot direct the police to register First Information Report. This authority is of no assistance to the petitioners for the XI Metropolitan magistrate, Secunderabad, essentially directed the police to investigate the crime. On receiving such information, if the police register the crime, the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the police to investigate is not rendered illegal because under law unless and until police register a cognizable offence they cannot take up investigation. In Guruduth Prabhu v. M. S. Krishna Bhat (supra), the Karnataka High court after considering the purport of sections 156 and 157 of Cr. P. C, explained legal position as under: it is therefore very important that the magistrate applies his mind and finds that the allegations made in the complaint filed under Section 200, Cr. P. C. , before him discloses an offence. If every complaint filed under Section 200, Cr. P. C. , is referred to the police under Section 156 (3) without application of mind about the disclosure of an offence, there is every likelihood of unscrupulous complainants in order to harass the alleged accused named by them in their complaints making bald allegations just to see that the alleged accused are harassed by the police who have no other go except to investigate as ordered by the magistrate. Therefore, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to apply his mind to the allegations made in the complaint and in only cases which disclose an offence, the magistrate gets jurisdiction to order an investigation by the police if he does not take cognizance of the offence. In the present case, the learned Magistrate without applying his mind has blindly ordered the investigation under Section 156 (3) and the said order is, therefore, without jurisdiction, (emphasis supplied) ( 8 ) IN a Full Bench decision of allahabad High Court in Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U. P. , (supra), it was held that on receiving a complaint, Magistrate has to apply his mind to allegation in complaint upon which he may at once proceed to take cognizance and may order it to go to police Station for being investigated. Reliance was placed on the decision of the supreme Court in Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC 986 = (1961) 2 cri. Reliance was placed on the decision of the supreme Court in Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC 986 = (1961) 2 cri. LJ 39 and Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M. P. , 2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 367 (SC) = air 2001 SC 571 = 2001 Cri. LJ 954, in support of the conclusion. Thus, it may be taken as well settled that the learned magistrate competent to take cognizance of a crime has to apply mind to the complaint of facts either before taking cognizance under Section 200 of Cr. P. C. , or before referring it to the police for investigation under Section 202 (1) of Cr. P. C. It does not, however, mean that Magistrate should record elaborate reasons for referring the complaint for police investigation. ( 9 ) IN the case on hand, the second respondent filed complaint on 28-7-2003. In the last paragraph of the complaint, it was averred that as the offence has been committed by the company incorporated under the Companies Act, it requires investigation by the police. The second respondent also prayed the Court to refer the complaint to the concerned Police station for investigation and necessary action. The office of the learned Magistrate put up a note on the same day giving gist of the case and also bringing to the notice of the Magistrate that the complainant prayed the Court to refer the matter under section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. , for investigation by P. S. , Begumpet, Secunderabad. Then the learned Magistrate passed orders as under: heard. Perused record. Matter has to be investigated by police. Hence, under section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. , police is directed to register a case and investigate as per law. ( 10 ) WHEN the learned Magistrate mentions that the matter was heard and the police was directed to investigate the crime, it cannot be said the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind especially when the learned Magistrate mentioned that the matter has to be investigated by the police. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any impropriety or illegality in the magistrate referring the case for investigation to the police. ( 11 ) THE second submission that the complaint does not disclose commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC is devoid of any merit. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any impropriety or illegality in the magistrate referring the case for investigation to the police. ( 11 ) THE second submission that the complaint does not disclose commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC is devoid of any merit. The learned Counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Anna Reddy v. State of A. P. , (supra ). According to the learned Counsel, the complaint in both the cases even if the allegations are taken to be true, do not attract any penal provisions but only attracts civil action for breach of contract which ensures the de facto complainant to seek redress by civil remedies. The gravamen of the allegations made in the complaint of the second respondent is in two parts. The first of it is that the third petitioner induced the complainant to invest a huge sum promising that the first petitioner would pay interest at the rate of 36% per annum. The second part of the allegation is that the petitioners failed to repay/refund/return the amounts so invested and failed to fulfil the promise. Be it also noted that in the first case, the second respondent invested a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- and in the second case, the second respondent invested a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. It is not the case of the petitioners that the second respondent invested money in the first petitioner company as a shareholder or debenture holder. Whatever the amount that was invested by the second respondent is by way of a loan having been attracted by the promise of payment of interest at 36% per annum. The second respondent was made or was induced to lend money to the petitioners who promised to repay the amount. The question therefore would be when the petitioners allegedly failed to repay the amount invested by the second respondent, whether the offence of cheating is attracted or not. Section 415 of Indian penal Code defines cheating, which reads as under. Cheating. 415. The question therefore would be when the petitioners allegedly failed to repay the amount invested by the second respondent, whether the offence of cheating is attracted or not. Section 415 of Indian penal Code defines cheating, which reads as under. Cheating. 415. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation: A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. ( 12 ) THE offence of cheating has two ingredients, namely, dishonest and fraudulent misrepresentation to a person and secondly the inducing of that person thereby to deliver property. (See Mobarik All Ahmed v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 ). In a wide variety of situations and transactions between individuals and many human beings, there could be inducement by one as a result of which the other is made to deliver property. Illustrations (a) to (i) under section 415 of IPC give instances of cheating. For the purpose of this case, illustration (f) is relevant and needs to be extracted. (f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats, (emphasis supplied) ( 13 ) IN the considered opinion of this court, the definition of cheating under section 415 of IPC read with illustration (f) would clearly show that the allegations in the complaint of the second respondent attract the offence of cheating and both the ingredients of cheating are very much present. When the petitioners allegedly received money, and allegedly promised to repay the amount with 36% interest per annum and allegedly failed to repay the same, the offence of cheating is attracted. Be it noted that but for the inducement that the amount will be repayable with interest at 36% per annum, the second respondent would have paid/lent/invested such huge amount in the first petitioner company. Be it noted that but for the inducement that the amount will be repayable with interest at 36% per annum, the second respondent would have paid/lent/invested such huge amount in the first petitioner company. Whether the investment was by way of capital participation or by other financial instruments etc. , are all matters of evidence, which need not be surmised in this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. This Court hastens to add that these are the observations made for the purpose of these petitions and are not intended to be conclusions and findings in relation to allegations made by the second respondent, which are only subject to proof. It in now well settled that in a petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. , for quashing an F. I. R/criminal case, the high Court is precluded from going into evidence. Applying the well settled principles, this Court is convinced that the criminal complaint lodged by the second respondent does not in any manner amount to abuse of process of law nor would result in miscarriage of justice if a regular trial is held. ( 14 ) THESE criminal petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed.