Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal filed against the judgment passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court, whereby the High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the Chairman of JVRR Education Society, who was accused of using a forged fire safety No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’), to obtain recognition for his college, the division bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. held that the essential ingredients of the offences of cheating and forgery were not satisfied, as per the facts of the case. Referring to the National Building Code, 2016, the Court noted that no fire safety NOC was required for educational institutions operating from buildings below 15 metres in height. Since the accused’s building stood at 14.20 metres, the Court found no material to establish the requisite mens rea or wrongful gain/loss necessary to constitute the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, or 471 IPC.
Background
The accused’s society, namely JVRR Education Society, had been running a college since 2016 in a non-multi-storeyed building comprising a ground floor and three upper floors, with a total height of 14.20 metres. On 13-07-2018, the District Fire Officer, Kurnool, submitted a written complaint alleging that the college had obtained a recognition certificate from the School Education Department by submitting a forged NOC, purportedly issued by the Assistant District Fire Officer, Kurnool. Based on this complaint, a First Information Report was registered for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash proceedings, holding that the necessity of an NOC could not be gone into at the preliminary stage.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that, admittedly, under the National Building Code of India, 2016, a NOC from the Fire Department was not required for educational buildings below 15 metres in height. The accused’s society was operating the educational institution from a building with a height of 14.20 metres, thus falling outside the purview of the NOC requirement. In view of this, the accused’s society, along with other similarly placed institutions, had instituted Writ Petition before the High Court, seeking renewal of affiliation without the mandatory requirement of furnishing a fire safety NOC from the State Disaster Response and Fire Services Department.
By order dated 25-04-2018, the High Court allowed the writ petition and issued directions to the Education Department to renew the affiliation without insisting on the fire NOC. However, upon non-compliance with this order, a contempt notice was issued on 01-07-2019 against officials of both the Education Department and the Fire Department.
The Court clarified that the ingredients of the offence of cheating are as follows:
-
Deception of a person by making a false representation, which the maker knows or has reason to believe to be false, and thereby:
-
(a) Fraudulently or dishonestly induces such person:
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) Intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do anything which they would not do or omit if they were not so deceived, and such act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation, or property.
The Court further noted that the terms ‘dishonestly’ and ‘fraudulently’ are critical to understanding the mental element required under the offence of cheating.
Reading the ingredients of the offence in light of the above definitions, the Court highlighted that to attract the offence of cheating, a person must knowingly make a false statement with the intention to deceive, which induces another person either to part with property or to do or omit to do something that they would not have done or omitted but for the deception, thereby causing or likely causing damage or harm to the person’s body, mind, reputation, or property.
The Court concluded that there was nothing on record to show that the accused had manufactured the alleged forged document, which is a sine qua non for attracting the offence under Section 465 IPC. In fact, the original fabricated document had not been recovered.
Relying on the decision in Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj , (2018) 7 SCC 581, the Court reiterated that to attract Section 464 IPC (which defines the making of a false document), the prosecution must establish that the accused actually made the forged document. In the present case, no material connecting the accused to the creation of the forged document had been adduced in the chargesheet.
Similarly, offences under Section 468 IPC (forgery for the purpose of cheating) and Section 471 IPC (using as genuine a forged document) were also found to be inapplicable, as the requisite mens rea, i.e., dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the Education Department and wrongful gain to the appellant, had not been demonstrated. The Court further noted that the issuance of the recognition certificate was not contingent upon the production of the alleged forged NOC, thereby negating the element of inducement or harm.
The Court observed that the High Court failed to consider these crucial aspects, and that the uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet, when read in light of the order dated 25-04-2018 did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences of cheating or forgery.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court, quashed the proceedings under Section 420 IPC, and allowed the appeal.
[Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1950, decided on 10-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant(s): Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR Ms. Prerna Robin, Adv. Ms. Grahita Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Mr. B. Yeshwanth Raj, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
