Introduction
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2025 INSC 1096) set aside criminal proceedings against the appellant, holding that the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery were not made out. The judgment, delivered on 10 September 2025 by a Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, clarified the scope of criminal liability where regulatory requirements are misinterpreted.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy, managed JVRR Education Society, which has been running a college in Kurnool since 2016. The institution operated from a building measuring 14.20 metres in height, i.e., below the 15-metre threshold under the National Building Code of India, 2016, which exempts such institutions from requiring a fire No-Objection Certificate (NOC).
In 2018, a complaint was lodged by the District Fire Officer alleging that the college had obtained recognition from the Education Department by submitting a forged fire NOC. A criminal case was registered under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC, later narrowed to Section 420 (cheating) in the chargesheet.
Proceedings Before the High Court
The appellant sought quashing of the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, arguing that no NOC was legally required for the institution. However, in April 2024, the High Court refused to intervene, holding that the matter required trial.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The core questions before the Supreme Court were:
- Whether using an allegedly forged fire NOC amounted to “cheating” under Section 420 IPC.
- Whether the allegations disclosed offences of forgery under Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC.
- Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings was justified in light of earlier writ orders.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
- No Requirement of NOC: The Court noted that under the National Building Code and a 2018 Andhra Pradesh High Court writ order, no fire NOC was required for educational buildings below 15 metres. Since the appellant’s institution fell within this category, recognition could not have depended on submission of an NOC.
- Lack of Dishonest Inducement: To constitute cheating, there must be both deception and dishonest inducement leading to wrongful loss or gain. The Court held that even assuming a false NOC was produced, it was not a material fact for grant of recognition. Therefore, no wrongful gain or loss occurred.
- Forgery Allegations: The Court emphasized that making a forged document is a sine qua non for offences under Sections 465–471 IPC. Since the alleged fabricated document was never recovered and there was no evidence linking the appellant to its creation, forgery could not be made out.
- Precedents Relied Upon:
- Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Administration (1998) 8 SCC 745 – deception alone is insufficient for cheating.
- Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168 – intention is the gist of cheating.
- Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (2018) 7 SCC 581 – only the maker of a false document can be charged with forgery.
Verdict
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, observing that the case was initiated as a counter-blast after the appellant had successfully obtained favourable orders in writ proceedings against the Education Department and Fire Services.
The Court held:
- The uncontroverted allegations do not satisfy essential ingredients of cheating or forgery.
- The High Court failed to consider this while rejecting the quash petition.
- Proceedings in CC No. 303/2020 under Section 420 IPC were quashed.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling underscores important principles in criminal law:
- Regulatory non-compliance does not automatically amount to criminality, especially where statutory requirements are misapplied.
- Cheating requires dishonest inducement and wrongful loss/gain, not just a technical misrepresentation.
- Forgery charges demand proof of authorship of the false document, not mere use.
The judgment also highlights judicial sensitivity towards preventing misuse of criminal prosecution as a tool of harassment when civil or regulatory remedies exist.