Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 1096
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9744 of 2024)
Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy .… Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. …. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated
18.04.2024 in Criminal Petition No. 2197/2021 passed by High
Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby the High Court refused to quash
proceedings in CC No. 303 of 2020 under Section 420 of the Indian
1
Penal Code, 1860 .
3. Appellant’s society namely, JVRR Education Society is running
a college since 2016 from a non-multi-storeyed building comprising
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.09.10
17:12:44 IST
Reason:
ground – 03 upstairs, with a height of 14.20 metres. On 13.07.2018,
1
Hereinafter “IPC”.
Page 1 of 10
one V. Sreenivasa Reddy, District Fire Officer, Kurnool, submitted a
written complaint alleging that the college had obtained recognition
certificate from the School Education Department to run the
educational institution by submitting a forged no-objection
2
certificate purportedly issued by Assistant District Fire Officer,
Kurnool. The said complaint was registered as a First Information
Report by Nandyal III Town PS in Crime No. 99/2018 on 15.07.2018
under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC corresponding to CC No.
303/2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Nandyal.
4. On conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed under
Section 420 IPC. In the chargesheet, it was, inter alia, alleged that
the Inspector of Police (LW 8) visited the District Fire Office and came
to know the District Fire Officer had not issued the NOC, and only a
xerox copy of the Fire NOC was submitted in the office of State
3
Council of Educational Research and Training to obtain recognition
and run the institution. In spite of efforts, the alleged fabricated
document could not be recovered and chargesheet was filed alleging
appellant had created a forged document, namely NOC, and used it
2
Hereinafter “NOC”.
3
Hereinafter “SCERT”.
Page 2 of 10
as genuine to play fraud on the Education Department and District
Fire Office, Kurnool, which is punishable under Section 420 IPC.
4
5. Admittedly, as per National Building Code of India, 2016,
NOC from the officer concerned of the Fire Department was not
necessary for educational buildings which were below 15 metres in
height. Appellant’s society was running the educational institution
from a building having height of 14.20 metres. Given this situation,
appellant’s society and other educational institutions had instituted
writ proceedings in WP No. 14542/2018 before the High Court and
prayed for renewal of affiliation without insisting on fire NOC from
the State Disaster Response and Fire Services Department.
6. By order dated 25.04.2018, the writ petition came to be
allowed and directions were issued upon the Education Department
to renew affiliation without insisting on furnishing fire NOC. Due to
non-compliance of such direction vide letter dated 01.07.2019
contempt notice was issued upon Education as well as the Fire
Department.
7. It is contended that as a counter-blast, the present criminal
case came to be registered to intimidate and harass the appellant. In
4
Rule 4.6.1.4, National Building Code of India.
Page 3 of 10
this backdrop, appellant approached the High Court to quash the
said proceeding.
8. The High Court was of the view, the issue whether the
appellant’s society required a NOC from the Fire Department to run
the educational institution cannot be considered at the preliminary
stage and refused to quash the proceedings.
9. Heard Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, learned senior counsel for the
appellant and Ms. Prerna Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
10. The gist of the accusation in the impugned chargesheet is that
the appellant had dishonestly used a fake NOC from the Fire
Department to obtain recognition/renewal of affiliation to run the
educational institution. It is evident from the order passed in the writ
proceedings that NOC from the Fire Department was not necessary
for recognition/renewal of affiliation of educational institutions which
are imparting education from the buildings having height below 15
metres.
11. Admittedly, the appellant’s educational institution is in a
building having height of 14.20 metres and no NOC affiliation from
the Fire Department is necessary for obtaining recognition/renewal.
Page 4 of 10
12. The ingredients of the offence of cheating are as follows:
1) Deception of a person by making false representation which
the maker knows or has reason to believe is false and thereby
2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing 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 he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to
cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property.
13. The words ‘dishonestly’ and ‘fraudulently’ are defined as
follows:
‘‘24. “Dishonestly”—
Whoever does anything with the intention of causing
wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another
person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.
25. “Fraudulently”—
A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that
thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.’’
Section 23 IPC defines wrongful loss/ wrongful gain:
Page 5 of 10
““Wrongful gain”: Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful
means of property to which the person gaining is not
legally entitled.
“Wrongful loss”: Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful
means of property to which the person losing it is legally
entitled.”
Reading the ingredients in the backdrop of these definitions, it is
evident in order to attract the offence of cheating, a person must
knowingly make a false statement which would induce another to
part with property or to do or omit to do a thing which the latter
would not do or omit unless deceived and thereby is likely to suffer
damage/harm in body, mind, reputation or property.
5
14. In Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Admn. & Ors., this
Court held mere deception by itself would not constitute cheating
unless the other essential ingredient, i.e., dishonest inducement is
established. This Court held as follows:
“… both the learned courts have rested their findings on
deception only and did not go into the question whether the
complaint and its accompaniments disclosed the other
essential ingredient of the offence under Section 420 IPC,
namely, dishonest inducement. “Dishonesty” has been
defined in Section 24 IPC to mean deliberate intention to
cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss; and when with such
intention, deception is practised and delivery of property is
induced then the offence under Section 420 IPC can be said
to have been committed…"
5
(1998) 8 SCC 745, para 3.
Page 6 of 10
15. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. v. State of Bihar &
6
Anr., this Court reiterated that Section 415 IPC contemplates two
distinct situations; the first where a person is dishonestly induced to
deliver property, and the second where a person is induced to do or
omit an act which, but for the deception, he would not have done or
omitted. In the former, the inducement must be fraudulent or
dishonest, whereas in the latter it need only be intentional. Therefore,
intention is the gist of the offence.
16. It is strenuously argued the appellant had used a fake NOC
from the Fire Department and thereby held out a false representation
that he possessed a valid NOC to obtain recognition/renewal of
affiliation for his institution. Uncontroverted allegations in the charge
sheet including the order in the writ proceedings, unequivocally show
NOC from the Fire Department was not necessary for grant of such
recognition/renewal of affiliation as the height of the appellant’s
building was below 15 metres. Given this situation, the
representation of the appellant that he possessed a valid NOC cannot
be said to have induced the Education Department to grant
6
(2000) 4 SCC 168, paras 13-15.
Page 7 of 10
recognition or renew the affiliation. To attract penal consequences, it
must be shown that the false representation was of a material fact
which had induced the victim to either part with property or act in a
manner which they would not otherwise do but for such false
representation. In the absence of such vital link between the alleged
false representation and the issuance of recognition/renewal of
affiliation, the essential ingredient of offence is not satisfied.
[
17. Ms. Prerna Singh has also argued that though the chargesheet
has been filed under Section 420, the contours of the offence of
forgery are evident as the appellant has knowingly used a fake
document.
18. We are unable to accept her submission on this score too.
There is nothing on record to show the appellant had manufactured
the alleged fake document which is a sine qua non to attract Section
7
465 IPC. In fact, the original fabricated document had not been
recovered.
7
Punishment for forgery.
Page 8 of 10
8
19. In this Court held to
Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj & Anr.,
9
attract Section 464 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the
accused had made the fake document. No material connecting the
appellant to the making of the fake document has been adduced in
the impugned charge sheet.
10
20. Similarly, offences under Section 468 IPC and Section 471
11
IPC are not attracted, as the requisite mens rea , i.e., dishonest
intention to cause wrongful loss to the Education Department and
wrongful gain to himself has not been demonstrated as the issuance
of the recognition was not dependent on the production of the alleged
forged NOC.
21. The High Court failed to consider these relevant issues which
clearly demonstrate that the uncontroverted allegations in the
chargesheet, in the teeth of order dated 25.04.2018 in WP No.
14542/2018, do not disclose essential ingredients of cheating or
forgery. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High
8
(2018) 7 SCC 581, para 25.
9
Making a false document.
10
Forgery for purpose of cheating.
11
Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.
Page 9 of 10
Court, quash the proceedings in CC No. 303/2020 under Section 420
IPC and allow the appeal.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……..…..……...……………………….J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
……..…..……...……………………….J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
NEW DELHI,
SEPTEMBER 10, 2025
Page 10 of 10
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 1096
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9744 of 2024)
Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy .… Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. …. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated
18.04.2024 in Criminal Petition No. 2197/2021 passed by High
Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby the High Court refused to quash
proceedings in CC No. 303 of 2020 under Section 420 of the Indian
1
Penal Code, 1860 .
3. Appellant’s society namely, JVRR Education Society is running
a college since 2016 from a non-multi-storeyed building comprising
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.09.10
17:12:44 IST
Reason:
ground – 03 upstairs, with a height of 14.20 metres. On 13.07.2018,
1
Hereinafter “IPC”.
Page 1 of 10
one V. Sreenivasa Reddy, District Fire Officer, Kurnool, submitted a
written complaint alleging that the college had obtained recognition
certificate from the School Education Department to run the
educational institution by submitting a forged no-objection
2
certificate purportedly issued by Assistant District Fire Officer,
Kurnool. The said complaint was registered as a First Information
Report by Nandyal III Town PS in Crime No. 99/2018 on 15.07.2018
under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC corresponding to CC No.
303/2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Nandyal.
4. On conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed under
Section 420 IPC. In the chargesheet, it was, inter alia, alleged that
the Inspector of Police (LW 8) visited the District Fire Office and came
to know the District Fire Officer had not issued the NOC, and only a
xerox copy of the Fire NOC was submitted in the office of State
3
Council of Educational Research and Training to obtain recognition
and run the institution. In spite of efforts, the alleged fabricated
document could not be recovered and chargesheet was filed alleging
appellant had created a forged document, namely NOC, and used it
2
Hereinafter “NOC”.
3
Hereinafter “SCERT”.
Page 2 of 10
as genuine to play fraud on the Education Department and District
Fire Office, Kurnool, which is punishable under Section 420 IPC.
4
5. Admittedly, as per National Building Code of India, 2016,
NOC from the officer concerned of the Fire Department was not
necessary for educational buildings which were below 15 metres in
height. Appellant’s society was running the educational institution
from a building having height of 14.20 metres. Given this situation,
appellant’s society and other educational institutions had instituted
writ proceedings in WP No. 14542/2018 before the High Court and
prayed for renewal of affiliation without insisting on fire NOC from
the State Disaster Response and Fire Services Department.
6. By order dated 25.04.2018, the writ petition came to be
allowed and directions were issued upon the Education Department
to renew affiliation without insisting on furnishing fire NOC. Due to
non-compliance of such direction vide letter dated 01.07.2019
contempt notice was issued upon Education as well as the Fire
Department.
7. It is contended that as a counter-blast, the present criminal
case came to be registered to intimidate and harass the appellant. In
4
Rule 4.6.1.4, National Building Code of India.
Page 3 of 10
this backdrop, appellant approached the High Court to quash the
said proceeding.
8. The High Court was of the view, the issue whether the
appellant’s society required a NOC from the Fire Department to run
the educational institution cannot be considered at the preliminary
stage and refused to quash the proceedings.
9. Heard Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, learned senior counsel for the
appellant and Ms. Prerna Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
10. The gist of the accusation in the impugned chargesheet is that
the appellant had dishonestly used a fake NOC from the Fire
Department to obtain recognition/renewal of affiliation to run the
educational institution. It is evident from the order passed in the writ
proceedings that NOC from the Fire Department was not necessary
for recognition/renewal of affiliation of educational institutions which
are imparting education from the buildings having height below 15
metres.
11. Admittedly, the appellant’s educational institution is in a
building having height of 14.20 metres and no NOC affiliation from
the Fire Department is necessary for obtaining recognition/renewal.
Page 4 of 10
12. The ingredients of the offence of cheating are as follows:
1) Deception of a person by making false representation which
the maker knows or has reason to believe is false and thereby
2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing 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 he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to
cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property.
13. The words ‘dishonestly’ and ‘fraudulently’ are defined as
follows:
‘‘24. “Dishonestly”—
Whoever does anything with the intention of causing
wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another
person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.
25. “Fraudulently”—
A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that
thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.’’
Section 23 IPC defines wrongful loss/ wrongful gain:
Page 5 of 10
““Wrongful gain”: Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful
means of property to which the person gaining is not
legally entitled.
“Wrongful loss”: Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful
means of property to which the person losing it is legally
entitled.”
Reading the ingredients in the backdrop of these definitions, it is
evident in order to attract the offence of cheating, a person must
knowingly make a false statement which would induce another to
part with property or to do or omit to do a thing which the latter
would not do or omit unless deceived and thereby is likely to suffer
damage/harm in body, mind, reputation or property.
5
14. In Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Admn. & Ors., this
Court held mere deception by itself would not constitute cheating
unless the other essential ingredient, i.e., dishonest inducement is
established. This Court held as follows:
“… both the learned courts have rested their findings on
deception only and did not go into the question whether the
complaint and its accompaniments disclosed the other
essential ingredient of the offence under Section 420 IPC,
namely, dishonest inducement. “Dishonesty” has been
defined in Section 24 IPC to mean deliberate intention to
cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss; and when with such
intention, deception is practised and delivery of property is
induced then the offence under Section 420 IPC can be said
to have been committed…"
5
(1998) 8 SCC 745, para 3.
Page 6 of 10
15. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. v. State of Bihar &
6
Anr., this Court reiterated that Section 415 IPC contemplates two
distinct situations; the first where a person is dishonestly induced to
deliver property, and the second where a person is induced to do or
omit an act which, but for the deception, he would not have done or
omitted. In the former, the inducement must be fraudulent or
dishonest, whereas in the latter it need only be intentional. Therefore,
intention is the gist of the offence.
16. It is strenuously argued the appellant had used a fake NOC
from the Fire Department and thereby held out a false representation
that he possessed a valid NOC to obtain recognition/renewal of
affiliation for his institution. Uncontroverted allegations in the charge
sheet including the order in the writ proceedings, unequivocally show
NOC from the Fire Department was not necessary for grant of such
recognition/renewal of affiliation as the height of the appellant’s
building was below 15 metres. Given this situation, the
representation of the appellant that he possessed a valid NOC cannot
be said to have induced the Education Department to grant
6
(2000) 4 SCC 168, paras 13-15.
Page 7 of 10
recognition or renew the affiliation. To attract penal consequences, it
must be shown that the false representation was of a material fact
which had induced the victim to either part with property or act in a
manner which they would not otherwise do but for such false
representation. In the absence of such vital link between the alleged
false representation and the issuance of recognition/renewal of
affiliation, the essential ingredient of offence is not satisfied.
[
17. Ms. Prerna Singh has also argued that though the chargesheet
has been filed under Section 420, the contours of the offence of
forgery are evident as the appellant has knowingly used a fake
document.
18. We are unable to accept her submission on this score too.
There is nothing on record to show the appellant had manufactured
the alleged fake document which is a sine qua non to attract Section
7
465 IPC. In fact, the original fabricated document had not been
recovered.
7
Punishment for forgery.
Page 8 of 10
8
19. In this Court held to
Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj & Anr.,
9
attract Section 464 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the
accused had made the fake document. No material connecting the
appellant to the making of the fake document has been adduced in
the impugned charge sheet.
10
20. Similarly, offences under Section 468 IPC and Section 471
11
IPC are not attracted, as the requisite mens rea , i.e., dishonest
intention to cause wrongful loss to the Education Department and
wrongful gain to himself has not been demonstrated as the issuance
of the recognition was not dependent on the production of the alleged
forged NOC.
21. The High Court failed to consider these relevant issues which
clearly demonstrate that the uncontroverted allegations in the
chargesheet, in the teeth of order dated 25.04.2018 in WP No.
14542/2018, do not disclose essential ingredients of cheating or
forgery. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High
8
(2018) 7 SCC 581, para 25.
9
Making a false document.
10
Forgery for purpose of cheating.
11
Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.
Page 9 of 10
Court, quash the proceedings in CC No. 303/2020 under Section 420
IPC and allow the appeal.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……..…..……...……………………….J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
……..…..……...……………………….J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
NEW DELHI,
SEPTEMBER 10, 2025
Page 10 of 10