I am studying Lebesgue integration after a course on Riemann integration, and the definition of measurable function is given as follows:
$f:{\mathbb R}\rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ is measurable if the pre-image $f^{-1}((-\infty, a))$ is measurable for each $a\in {\mathbb R}.$
So this necessarily implies that a function would not be Lebesgue integrable if it does not have an inverse, since it would not be measurable.
But I don't recall this restriction for Riemann integrals. Or was it just implicitly assumed that every Riemann integrable function is invertible?
$f^{-1}$ here does not mean the inverse of $f$. It is a horrifically bad overuse of notation and can be very misleading. $f^{-1}(A)$ where $A$ is a set is the pre-image, i.e.
$$f^{-1}(A) = \{x\in X: f(x) \in A\}.$$
The pre-image always exists. If $f$ were invertible, then this would coincide with what you think; however the pre-image takes care of the multi-valued aspect.
Take for instance $f:[-1,2]\to\mathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x) = x^2$. This is not invertible as you can see by, e.g., $f(-1) = 1 = f(1)$. However
$$f^{-1}([0,1]) = \{x\in [-1,2]:f(x) \in[0,1]\}.$$
The set of $x$ that solve this are those $x$ in $[-1,1]$ since when you square them you get something in $[0,1]$.
This function is not invertible but it is continuous on a set of finite Lebesgue measure, hence Lebesgue integrable.