ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 4. Complainant/petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘the Code of 1973’) against the order dated 10.1.2019 passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 253/18 thereby affirming the order dated 7.8.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur rejecting complaint filed by complainant/petitioner under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. 5. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that petitioner and respondent No. 1 being residents of same locality were known to each other. Respondent No. 1 contacted petitioner, sought financial help of Rs.1,50,000/- to fulfill his domestic need and promised that he will return money within two years. He also executed an agreement on 10.9.2014 and pursuant thereto petitioner extended help of Rs.1,50,000/- to respondent No. 1 in cash. When respondent No. 1 has refused to return the amount within agreed period, petitioner sent legal notice through his advocate asking him to return the amount, but he neither responded to legal notice nor returned the amount. Petitioner approached the police authorities but the police neither registered FIR nor taken against respondent No. 1, therefore, he has filed an application under Section 200 of the Code of 1973 and the said application came to be rejected by the impugned order on the ground that from the police report it is evident that allegations pertain to money transaction between the parties, in fact the dispute is of a civil nature pertaining to money transaction for which civil remedy is available to complainant and from the contents of complaint, prima facie no ground is made out to register complaint under Section 420 of IPC. Petitioner filed a revision before the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and the same was also dismissed by the order impugned holding that the petitioner has tried to give colour of criminality to a dispute which is purely of civil nature. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the orders passed by the trial Court as also revisional Court are arbitrary and illegal. He submits if application contains allegations of commission of a cognizable offence, then the Magistrate is under obligation to direct investigation after registration of FIR in each and every case. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the orders passed by the trial Court as also revisional Court are arbitrary and illegal. He submits if application contains allegations of commission of a cognizable offence, then the Magistrate is under obligation to direct investigation after registration of FIR in each and every case. However, learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order failed to take into consideration that petitioner made specific allegations in his application that respondent No. 1 dishonestly induced petitioner and by giving false assurance that he would repay the money has obtained money and thereafter he denied to return the same despite service of legal notice, which clearly bring forth the serious offence of cheating. Thus, the cognizable offence of cheating and fraud is prima facie made out against respondent No. 1 on the basis of averments made in complaint filed by petitioner and material placed on record in support thereof and as such, learned Magistrate ought to have directed the police to register FIR and to conduct investigation into the allegations made by petitioner in his complaint. The revisional court also rejected the revision cursorily without appreciating the contents of complaint, documents and statements on record. Thus, both the Courts have erred in passing the impugned orders. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the orders impugned do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The Magistrate has discretion either to take cognizance himself or to get the FIR registered. The Magistrate is not bound to direct registration of FIR and in fact, in the case hand, the dispute between the parties is nothing but of purely civil nature as reported by the police after preliminary investigation. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with petition. 9. Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. deals with complaints to the Magistrate. Section 200 Cr.P.C. talks about examination of complaint. Section 202 Cr.P.C. states about postponement of issuance of process. Section 203 Cr.P.C. deals with dismissal of complaint. Since the application filed by petitioner under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is rejected by impugned order, let us have a glance at provisions contained in Section 200 Cr.P.C. which is quoted below: “200. Section 200 Cr.P.C. talks about examination of complaint. Section 202 Cr.P.C. states about postponement of issuance of process. Section 203 Cr.P.C. deals with dismissal of complaint. Since the application filed by petitioner under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is rejected by impugned order, let us have a glance at provisions contained in Section 200 Cr.P.C. which is quoted below: “200. Examination of complainant - A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses: (a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint. (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192. Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.” 10. Proviso (b) to Clause (1) of Section 202 Cr.P.C. makes it imperative on the part of the learned Magistrate to first examine the complainant and his witnesses on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before passing any such order directing police to investigate and to submit the report. Said Proviso of Section 202 Cr.P.C. is extracted below: “Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made: (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under Section 200.” 11. Section 203 of Cr.P.C. deals with dismissal of complaint, which reads thus: “203. Dismissal of complaint - If, after considering the statement on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.” 12. In case of Tula Ram and Others vs. Kishore Singh and Others, (1977) 4 SCC 459 , where the Magistrate had issued process against the accused after taking due cognizance of the case and the same was affirmed by High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the legal propositions, relevant part of which is extracted below: “2. Where a Magistrate chooses to take cognizance, he can adopt any of the following alternatives: (a) He can peruse the complaint and if satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can straightaway issue process to the accused but before he does so, he must comply with the requirements of section 200 and record the evidence of the complainant or his witnesses.” 13. In case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. Keshvanand, (1998) 1 SCC 687 , Hon’ble Court held as follows: “22. Chapter XV of the new Code contains provisions for lodging complaints with magistrates. Section 200 as the starting provision of that chapter enjoins on the Magistrate, who takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint, to examine the complainant on oath. Such examination is mandatory as can be discerned from the words “shall examine on oath the complainant......” The Magistrate is further required to reduce the substance of such examination to writing and it “shall be signed by the complainant.......” 14. In case of Mona Panwar vs. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad through its Registrar and Others, (2011) 3 SCC 496 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “19........Before the Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Code, he must have not only applied his mind to the contents of the complaint presented before him, but must have done so for the purpose of proceeding under Section 200 and the provisions following that Section....” “20. Taking cognizance is a different thing from initiation of the proceedings. One of the objects of examination of complainant and his witnesses as mentioned in Section 200 of the Code is to ascertain whether there is prima facie case against the person accused of the offence in the complaint and to prevent the issue of process on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass such person. Such examination is provided, therefore, to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding further.” 15. Such examination is provided, therefore, to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding further.” 15. In case of Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 (8) SCC 27 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “42. In the facts of this case, having regard to the nature of the allegations contained in the protest petition and the annexure which essentially consisted of affidavits, if the Magistrate was convinced on the basis of the consideration of the final report, the statements under Section 161 of the Code that no prima facie case is made out, certainly the Magistrate could not be compelled to take cognizance by treating the protest petition as a complaint. The fact that he may have jurisdiction in a case to treat the protest petition as a complaint, is a different matter. Undoubtedly, if he treats the protest petition as a complaint, he would have to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 200 and 202 of the Code if the latter Section also commends itself to the Magistrate. In other words, necessarily, the complainant and his witnesses would have to be examined. No doubt, depending upon the material which is made available to a Magistrate by the complainant in the protest petition, it may be capable of being relied on in a particular case having regard to its inherent nature and impact on the conclusions in the final report. That is, if the material is such that it persuades the court to disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Officer, cognizance could be taken under Section 190 (1)(b) of the Code for which there is no necessity to examine the witnesses under Section 200 of the Code. But as the Magistrate could not be compelled to treat the protest petition as a complaint, the remedy of the complainant would be to file a fresh complaint and invite the Magistrate to follow the procedure under Section 200 of the Code or Section 200 read with Section 202 of the Code. Therefore, we are of the view that in the facts of this case, we cannot support the decision of the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. Therefore, we are of the view that in the facts of this case, we cannot support the decision of the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. A bare reading of above provision and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it clear that a procedure is set out under Section 200 Cr.P.C. which necessarily contemplate the Magistrate to examine complainant and witnesses present on oath, to be signed by complainant/witnesses and also by himself. If, after considering the statements on oath, if any, of the complainant and of the witnesses, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint by briefly recording the reasons. However, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there exist sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall issue summons for the attendance of accused if it is a summons- case and in case of a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant. The proviso appended to Section 202 Cr.P.C. also, provides that the above direction for investigation shall not be made in case, where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under Section 200. The words “shall” and “unless” used in the aforesaid proviso to section clearly indicates the mandatory nature of the procedure prescribed therein. So, it is imperative on the part of the Magistrate to examine the complainant and his witnesses on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C. So, the provision is a mandatory provision which shall be complied with invariably and it is only after examining the complainant and the witnesses on oath, that the Magistrate can pass order. 17. Keeping in mind above quoted provisions and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, let us see how the learned Magistrate has proceeded in the matter. 18. Perusal of the order sheets recorded pursuant to filing of complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. reveals that after rejection of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the matter was fixed for evidence before admission. As per order sheet dated 17.7.2018, statement of complainant and his witness namely M. Kaushalya were recorded; the counsel for complainant expressed not to adduce evidence before admission and therefore, the matter was fixed for arguments on admission. As per order sheet dated 17.7.2018, statement of complainant and his witness namely M. Kaushalya were recorded; the counsel for complainant expressed not to adduce evidence before admission and therefore, the matter was fixed for arguments on admission. Since the police report has also been requisitioned while deciding application filed by petitioner under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. no separate order is passed while dealing with complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. By the impugned order, learned Magistrate upon considering the statement on oath of complainant/petitioner herein and his witness; referring to the report submitted by police station, arrived at the conclusion that dispute between the parties being money transaction is of civil nature, there does not appear sufficient ground to register complaint under Section 420 IPC and consequently, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is apparent that the procedure as prescribed under Cr.P.C. for dealing with complaint cases has been followed by learned Magistrate. 19. Now the question arises whether the trial court as well as revisional court have committed any illegality or perversity in dismissing complaint of petitioner filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 20. It is settled law that the essential ingredients for an offence under Section 420 of IPC, there has to be dishonest intention to deceive another person. For taking cognizance of a complaint under Section 420 of IPC, the substance of complaint is to be seen and it is enough if the allegations in complaint prima facie disclose that the complainant was cheated by the accused. 21. In case of Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “12.......In other words for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 can be said to have been made out.” 22. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 can be said to have been made out.” 22. In case of Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati vs. CBI, New Delhi, (2003) 5 SCC 257 , Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-40 has observed and held as under: “40. It is settled law, by a catena of decisions, that for establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. From his making failure to keep promise subsequently, such a culpable intention right at the beginning that is at the time when the promise was made cannot be presumed...........” “......As there was absence of dishonest and fraudulent intention, the question of committing offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 does not arise. We have read the charge sheet as a whole. There is no allegation in the first information report or the charge sheet indicating expressly or impliedly any intentional deception or fraudulent/dishonest intention on the part of the appellants right from the time of making the promise or misrepresentation.........” 23. Let us examine the facts of present case in the light of aforesaid principles. From the material available in record it is appearing that respondent No. 1 being in need of money for the marriage of his daughter borrowed money from petitioner with the promise of returning back the money within two years and also executed an agreement to this effect, however, subsequently he refused to return back money which made the petitioner to file complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. along with an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate to take cognizance of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC against respondent No. 1. During pendency of complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate fixed the matter for evidence before admission and recording of evidence. On 17.7.2018 statement of complainant and his witness was recorded. During pendency of complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate fixed the matter for evidence before admission and recording of evidence. On 17.7.2018 statement of complainant and his witness was recorded. Complainant/ petitioner has deposed in his statement on oath that being residents of same locality, he is having acquaintance with respondent No. 1, as respondent No. 1 was in need of money, he asked for Rs.1,50,000/- from complainant which he gave him on 10.09.2014. Respondent No. 1 has also executed a promissory note on the stamp paper of Rs.50/- in his favour under which two years time was given to respondent No. 1 for returning the money, even in installments. However, even after expiry of two years, respondent No. 1 did not return the money and finally refused to return money. Wife of petitioner is examined as Witness No. 2 and she also stated in similar manner as was deposed by complainant/petitioner herein. There is no allegation either in complaint or statements so recorded that respondent No. 1 obtained the money by practicing fraud or by cheating the petitioner. 24. Agreement executed by respondent No. 1 is also available in record and perusal of the same would show that respondent No. 1 has given an undertaking that in case he did not repay borrowed money within time, then petitioner will have the right to set the law in motion against him for recovery of money. 25. The position which emerges from the above discussions is that there is no whisper in complaint or statement of witnesses about the deceit, cheating or fraudulent intention on the part of respondent No. 1 at the time of making initial promise wherefrom it can be inferred that he had intention to deceive or cheat the complainant and in absence thereof, no offence under Section 420 of IPC can be said to have been made out. It is trite law and common sense that a man entering into a contract is deemed to represent that he has present intention of carrying it out but if, having accepted the pecuniary advantage involved in the transaction, he fails to pay his debt, he does not necessarily evade the debt by deception. In fact, the afore discussed facts clearly emerge that dispute between the parties being related to non-refund of money borrowed, is essentially of a civil nature. In fact, the afore discussed facts clearly emerge that dispute between the parties being related to non-refund of money borrowed, is essentially of a civil nature. Even the agreement entered into between the parties clearly gives right to petitioner to recover money from respondent No. 1 by resorting to legal proceeding if he fails to return the money. A criminal prosecution is neither for recovery of money nor for enforcement of any security etc., and the proper course available for recovery of money etc. is to file a civil suit for recovery. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this court, the trial Court as well as revisional court have not committed any error in holding that the dispute between the parties is essentially of a civil nature; the complainant is having civil remedy and that the complainant has tried to give colour of criminality to purely a civil dispute. 26. In the result, this petition has no substance, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.