ORDER : Aggrieved by the order of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IX, Ernakulam, under Section 203 Cr.P.C, dismissing CMP No.1649/2016, a protest complaint filed by the revision petitioner, consequent to the referral report filed by the Palarivattom Police in Crime No. 980/2014, stating that as false, he has come up on revision before this Court. 2. The revision petitioner had originally filed CMP No. 2866/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ernakulam alleging an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused who is the 2nd respondent herein. That complaint was forwarded to the SHO, Palarivattom Police Station for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and in consequence, the aforesaid crime No.980/2014 was registered and investigated upon and found to be false. That final report was accepted by the Magistrate. Aggrieved by that, the complainant approached this Court by filing Crl.R.P No.593/2017 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 07/11/2017 and directed the learned Magistrate to consider the protest complaint filed by the complainant as CMP No.1649/2016. The Magistrate thereafter conducted an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant was examined as PW1 and his witnesses were examined as PWs 2 and 3. Vide the impugned order dated 01/03/2018, the CMP was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 3. The facts allegations made by the revision petitioner in the complaint, in brief, are thus: During November, 2012 the accused dishonestly induced the complainant to enter into an agreement to exchange his 2009 model Tata Safari SUV for a sale consideration of Rs.5 lakhs with the Maruti Alto 2009 model car belonging to the complainant for a sale consideration of Rs.1.4 lakhs. The complainant allegedly paid in advance of Rs.1 lakh and also transferred his car to the accused and thereafter, the SUV was hypothecated with the Pathanamthitta branch of Central Bank for a sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs, which too was handed over to the accused. Only after the sale was completed, did the complainant realise that the SUV was badly damaged in a road traffic accident and that it was actually registered as a taxi car requiring payment of huge amount as road tax and insurance premium. Only after the sale was completed, did the complainant realise that the SUV was badly damaged in a road traffic accident and that it was actually registered as a taxi car requiring payment of huge amount as road tax and insurance premium. That apart, the accused also did not return the amount of Rs.90,000/- due to the complainant as a result of the exchange deal, and thus treated the complainant, who was thus constrained to file the complaint before the Magistrate's Court which resulted in dismissal. 4. The revision petitioner is an Advocate practising in the High Court of Kerala. The accused 2nd respondent is a junior cine artist struggling to establish himself in the field. They got acquainted through common friends namely Biji Mathew and Saji Verghese. The accused was also conducting a restaurant near the Gold Souk, Vytilla, under the name and style, 'Mappila Kada'. He was in dire need of money to spruce up his restaurant. He expressed his intention to sell his Tata Safari SUV, which he said was in a very good condition. He offered to purchase the applicant's Maruti Alto car and a deal was struck for the sale consideration referred to above. However, the complainant wanted to see the vehicle. The accused told him that the vehicle was in the possession of a moneylender in Cherthala to whom he owed some money and that the SUV would be released only on payment of Rs.1 lakh. The very next day, the complainant expressed his desire to see the vehicle and went to Cherthala. The vehicle has been in the possession of the moneylender for the past 4 months and was all covered with dust. In order to refrain from payment of higher amount as tax, he had planted a registration plate with a white background instead of the usual yellow background required for a taxi vehicle. It is contended that the Court below has gone for a detailed evaluation of the evidence in the case and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case of the complainant which is not envisaged by conducting enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the revision petitioner seeks interference of this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel Shri S Rajeev appearing for the revision petitioner, Sri Saiby Jose Kidangoor appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri. E.C.Bineesh, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Records perused. 6. 5. Heard the learned counsel Shri S Rajeev appearing for the revision petitioner, Sri Saiby Jose Kidangoor appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri. E.C.Bineesh, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Records perused. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that while conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is expected to find out whether there is a prima facie case in issuing process against the person accused of the offence in the complaint. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has passed an order by meticulously appreciating the evidence in the case as if it was a trial. The learned counsel relies on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rosy vs. State of Kerala [2000 KHC 89 : AIR 2000 SC 637 ] to argue that all that the Magistrate needs to satisfy himself about is the sufficiency of the grounds alleged in the complaint to proceed against the accused and the complaint can be discussed only when it is found to be either false or vexatious or intended only to harass the accused. 7. In S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer vs. Videocon International Ltd. and others [ (2008) 2 SCC 492 ], referring to the provisions under Sections 200 to 203 of the Cr.P.C., the Apex Court observes: “Section 200 of the Court requires a Magistrate taken cognizance of an offence to examine the complainant and his witnesses on oath. Section 202, however, enacts that a Magistrate is not bound to issue process against the accused as a matter of course. It enables him before the issue of process either to inquire into the case himself or directed investigation to be made by a Police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding further. The underlying object of the enquiry under Section 202 is to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case against the accused. It does allow the Magistrate to form an opinion on whether the process should or should not be issued. At that stage, what a Magistrate is called upon to see is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the matter and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused.” 8. It does allow the Magistrate to form an opinion on whether the process should or should not be issued. At that stage, what a Magistrate is called upon to see is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the matter and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused.” 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta [2015 KHC 4093 : 2015 (3) SCC 424 ] to argue for the proposition that at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate was required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not. 9. The learned counsel also relies on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Teena Alex vs. State of Kerala and Others [ 2018 (1) KHC 433 ], wherein also it was held that the learned Magistrate was not right in entering into meticulous evaluation of evidence in dismissing the complaint and that the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C can in no sense be characterised as a trial. 10. Coming to the facts and materials in the instant case, the allegation against the accused is that he had dishonestly induced the revision petitioner/complainant to deliver his car as well as a total sum of Rs.1 lakh apart from handing over the loan amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs received by him for the purchase of the SUV belonging to the accused from the Central Bank, Pathanamthitta Branch. The complainant had got himself examined as PW1 and also examined his witnesses as PWs 2 and 3 to prove his case. It has to be decided whether the Magistrate was justified in finding that there no prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. 11. Section 415 of the Penal Code reads thus: "415. Cheating. It has to be decided whether the Magistrate was justified in finding that there no prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. 11. Section 415 of the Penal Code reads thus: "415. Cheating. -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"." The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows : (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him; (ii) (a) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (b) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and iii) in cases covered by (ii) (b) above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating. 12. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus: "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing deliver of property. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating. 12. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus: "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing deliver of property. -Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable to being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." The ingredients to constitute an offence under S.420 are as follows : (i) A person must commit the offence of cheating under S.415; and (ii) The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under S.420. 13. A Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 202 Cr.P.C. must examine if on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence or in other words, a prima facie case to make out the offence alleged. The condition necessary for an act to constitute an offence under S.415 of the Penal Code is that there was dishonest inducement by the accused. The complainant admits that the amount was paid by him voluntarily. No act on part of the accused has been alleged to disclose an intention to induce the delivery of any property to the accused by the revision petitioner. There is thus nothing on the face of the complaint to indicate that the accused dishonestly induced the revision petitioner to deliver any property to him. Cheating is an essential ingredient to an offence under S.420 of the Penal Code. The ingredient necessary to constitute the offence of cheating is not made out from the face of the complaint and consequently, no offence under S.420 is made out. At this stage, the Magistrate should only concerned with the question whether the averments in the complaint taken at their face value make out the ingredients of criminal offence or not. The ingredient necessary to constitute the offence of cheating is not made out from the face of the complaint and consequently, no offence under S.420 is made out. At this stage, the Magistrate should only concerned with the question whether the averments in the complaint taken at their face value make out the ingredients of criminal offence or not. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, I find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of cheating or the dishonest intention of the accused in retaining the money or the revision petitioner's vehicle in order to have wrongful gain to himself or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Even if all the allegations in the complaint taken at the face value are true, in my view, the basic essential ingredients of cheating are missing. Criminal proceedings are not a shortcut for other remedies. Since no case of dishonest intention of inducement is made out and the essential ingredients of S.420 IPC are missing, the learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaint under S.203 Cr.P.C. The dispute is mainly regarding the excess of Rs.90,000/-which has gone into the hands of the accused. The allegation that the accused had not disclosed the facts that the SUV belonging to him is actually a taxi and requires a higher amount as tax and insurance premium, are something which the revision petitioner ought to have been aware of while intending to purchase a vehicle. The fact that the vehicle was involved in an accident was also revealed to the revision petitioner by PW3. It is with the knowledge that the vehicle was involved in an accident, and that it was hypothecated to a money lender are all matters which the purchaser need to enquire and know. When the parties got into a contract for exchanging their vehicles, the agreement is supposed to have been made uberrimae fidei. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Magistrate. The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed.