Introduction:

In the case of Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Another [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 893], the Supreme Court of India, on September 10, 2025, delivered a significant ruling quashing criminal proceedings initiated against the head of an educational society accused of using a forged fire safety No-Objection Certificate (NOC) to obtain affiliation for his college. The matter was heard by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who carefully examined the ingredients of cheating, forgery, and use of forged documents under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and came to the conclusion that none of these offences were made out in the given circumstances. The appellant, Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy, was the head of an educational institution operating a college in a building that measured 14.20 metres in height. A criminal case was initiated against him based on allegations that he submitted a forged fire safety NOC to the Education Department in order to secure recognition or affiliation. The complaint originated from the District Fire Officer, who claimed that the NOC was forged. Subsequently, the police filed a charge sheet under Section 420 of the IPC for cheating. However, it was important to note that the alleged forged document was never recovered, which added to the weakness of the prosecution case. At the heart of the issue lay the fact that under the National Building Code of 2016, buildings below 15 metres in height were not required to obtain fire safety NOCs. This meant that the appellant’s institution, being housed in a building of 14.20 metres, was legally exempt from obtaining such a certificate. The High Court in related proceedings had also directed that the Education Department should not insist on NOCs for buildings below 15 metres and had even initiated contempt proceedings against the department for failing to comply. Against this background, the appellant argued that he had not committed any cheating or forgery since the NOC was not legally required, and hence, there was no dishonest inducement or wrongful gain on his part, nor wrongful loss to the Education Department. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case provides a valuable interpretation of the scope of Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC in the context of alleged use of forged documents, particularly when such documents are legally immaterial to the administrative decision in question.

Arguments of the Appellant:

The appellant, through senior counsel Mr. Sridhar Potaraju and his legal team, contended that the very foundation of the prosecution’s case was flawed since there was no requirement under law for an educational institution housed in a building below 15 metres in height to obtain a fire safety NOC. He emphasized that the college building measured only 14.20 metres and was, therefore, clearly outside the purview of such a requirement. Thus, the question of whether the NOC was forged or genuine became irrelevant for the purposes of affiliation. He argued that cheating under Section 420 IPC requires not only a false representation but also dishonest inducement leading to wrongful gain to the accused or wrongful loss to another. In the present case, since affiliation could have been granted without the NOC, there was no dishonest inducement. The Education Department was not misled into granting affiliation it would not otherwise have granted, because the NOC was not a precondition for recognition in the first place. He further argued that the ingredients of forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC were not satisfied, since forgery requires the making of a false document with intent to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain. Here, since the affiliation was not dependent on the NOC, there was neither wrongful loss to the department nor wrongful gain to the appellant. Moreover, the alleged NOC was not even recovered, thereby leaving no material evidence to substantiate the charge. The appellant also relied on previous High Court rulings that had clearly directed the Education Department to renew affiliations without insisting on fire safety NOCs for buildings below 15 metres. The initiation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances, he contended, amounted to a misuse of the criminal process and harassment of an educational administrator who had acted within his legal rights.

Arguments of the Respondents:

On the other hand, the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Ms. Prerna Singh and her team, sought to defend the criminal proceedings. The State contended that the appellant had submitted a forged document and that such conduct amounted to a serious offence irrespective of whether the NOC was legally required for the purpose of affiliation. It was argued that the act of creating or submitting a forged document itself fell within the mischief of forgery and cheating provisions under the IPC. The State emphasized that forgery is not solely about the consequence of the act but about the creation of a false document with the intent to deceive. Even if the Education Department was not misled into granting affiliation, the act of tendering a false NOC showed a dishonest intention, which the law seeks to punish. The respondents also argued that the High Court was right in refusing to quash the proceedings, since issues relating to the genuineness of the NOC and the intention behind its submission required evidence and trial. They urged that the matter should not be prematurely terminated at the threshold by invoking the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, and that the criminal process must be allowed to take its course. Further, the respondents highlighted that forgery and cheating not only cause financial loss but also undermine the trust in public institutions. By allegedly forging a fire safety NOC, the appellant undermined public faith in the regulatory system governing educational institutions and endangered the integrity of the process of granting affiliation.

The Court’s Judgment:

After carefully considering the arguments, the Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Joymalya Bagchi, set aside the High Court’s decision and quashed the criminal proceedings. The Court first examined the legal ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC. It noted that to constitute the offence of cheating, there must be (i) deception by making a false representation which the maker knows or believes to be false, and (ii) such deception must induce another person to deliver property, consent to retain property, or do/omit to do an act which they would not otherwise have done but for the deception, and which results in or is likely to result in damage or harm. The Court emphasized that both deception and dishonest inducement leading to wrongful gain or loss are essential. Applying this framework, the Court found that in the present case, there was no dishonest inducement. Since the appellant’s building was below 15 metres, the law did not require a fire safety NOC. Therefore, even if he represented that he had one, such representation was immaterial for the purpose of granting affiliation. The Education Department would have granted affiliation regardless of the NOC. Hence, no wrongful gain accrued to the appellant nor wrongful loss to the department. Without this essential element, the offence of cheating was not made out. The Court then turned to the allegations of forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. It held that forgery requires the creation or use of a false document with intent to cause wrongful loss to someone or wrongful gain to oneself. In the present case, the alleged forged NOC was irrelevant to the grant of recognition or renewal of affiliation, as confirmed by the High Court’s earlier directions. Therefore, the requisite mens rea—dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss or gain—was absent. Moreover, the document in question was never recovered, which further weakened the case. Justice Bagchi noted that for penal consequences to follow, the false representation must concern a material fact that actually induces the victim to part with property or to act differently. Here, since affiliation was legally available without the NOC, there was no such material inducement. The Court concluded that the “vital link” between the alleged false representation and the administrative decision was missing. Consequently, the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery were not satisfied. The Court categorically stated that mere production of an unnecessary or legally irrelevant document, even if false, cannot attract criminal liability unless it is shown to have materially induced the decision-making authority. In light of these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The ruling clarified that criminal law should not be invoked in cases where the alleged falsehood is immaterial to the administrative decision in question and where no dishonest intention or wrongful consequence can be demonstrated.