The Supreme Court has quashed a cheating case wherein it was alleged that an educational institution was involved in the forging of a fire NOC in order to renew affiliation. The Apex Court held that 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.

The appeal before the Apex Court was directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court refusing to quash proceedings in a case registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asserted, “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.”

Senior Advocate Sridhar Potaraju represented the Appellant, while Advocate Prerna Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Appellant’s society, namely, JVRR Education Society, has been running a college since 2016 from a non-multi-storeyed building. The District Fire Officer, Kurnool, had submitted a written complaint in the year 2018, alleging that the college had obtained a recognition certificate from the School Education Department to run the educational institution by submitting a forged no-objection certificate purportedly issued by the Assistant District Fire Officer, Kurnool. The said complaint was registered as a First Information Report under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC. As per the 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 at a height of 14.20 metres. Given this situation, appellant’s society and other educational institutions had instituted writ proceedings, which came to be allowed. Directions were issued upon the Education Department to renew affiliation without insisting on furnishing a fire NOC. Due to non-compliance with such direction a contempt notice was issued upon Education as well as the Fire Department. Contending that the criminal case was registered to intimidate and harass the appellant, the appellant approached the High Court to quash the proceedings but the Court refused to do the same. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained the essential ingredients constituting offence of cheating and stated, “....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.”

The Bench further noticed that the uncontroverted allegations in the charge sheet, including the order in the writ proceedings, unequivocally showed that the NOC from the Fire Department was not necessary for the grant of such recognition/renewal of affiliation, as the height of the appellant’s building was below 15 metres. As per the Bench, the representation of the appellant that he possessed a valid NOC couldnot be said to have induced the Education Department to grant recognition or renew the affiliation.

The Bench also mentioned, “There is nothing on record to show the appellant had manufactured the alleged fake document which is a sine qua non to attract Section 465 IPC. In fact, the original fabricated document had not been recovered.” The Bench was of the view that offences under Section 468 IPC and Section 471 IPC were not attracted, as the requisite mens rea, i.e., dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the Education Department and wrongful gain to himself, was not demonstrated, as the issuance of the recognition was not dependent on the production of the alleged forged NOC.

Considering the fact that the allegations did not disclose essential ingredients of cheating or forgery, the Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and quashed the proceedings under Section 420 IPC.

Cause Title: Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1096)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Sridhar Potaraju, Advocate Rohit Bharadwaj, AOR B. Shravanth Shanker, Advocates Prerna Robin, Grahita Agarwal, Lalit Mohan, B. Yeshwanth Raj

Respondent: Advocate Prerna Singh, AOR Guntur Pramod Kumar, Advocate Dhruv Yadav

Click here to read/download Judgment



Justice BV NagarathnaJustice Joymalya Bagchi

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.