JUPALLY LAKSHMIKANTHA REDDYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

                 [2025] 10 S.C.R. 58 : 2025 INSC 1096

                    Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy
                                  v.
                    State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 3951 of 2025)
                             10 September 2025
           [B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the proceedings
       u/s.420, IPC against the appellant.

                                  Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 465, 468, 471 – National Building
       Code of India, 2016 – Appellant’s society was running an
       educational institution from a building having height of 14.20
       metres – FIR was filed u/ss.420, 465, 468, 471; chargesheet filed
       u/s.420 alleged that the appellant had created a forged Fire NOC
       and used it to obtain recognition/renewal of affiliation for his
       institution – High Court refused to quash the proceedings –
       Challenge to:
       Held: 1.1 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. [Para 13]
       1.2 Further, admittedly, 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 – Thus, NOC from the Fire Department was
       not necessary for grant of such recognition/renewal of affiliation
       as admittedly, the height of the appellant’s building was below
       15 metres – Therefore, the representation of the appellant that
       he possessed a valid NOC cannot be said to have induced the
       Education Department to grant recognition or renew the affiliation.
       [Paras 10, 16]




* Author
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                            59

   Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.


     1.3 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. [Para 16]
     1.4 Moreover, there is nothing on record to show the appellant
     had manufactured the alleged fake document which is a sine qua
     non to attract s.465 IPC – In fact, the original fabricated document
     was not even recovered. [Para 18]
     1.5 Similarly, offences u/s.468 and s.471 are also 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. [Para 20]
     1.6 Essential ingredients of cheating or forgery not disclosed –
     Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Proceedings u/s.420
     quashed. [Para 21]
     Penal Code, 1860 – s.420 – Ingredients, enumerated. [Para 12]
     Words and Phrases – ‘dishonestly’; ‘fraudulently’; ‘wrongful
     loss’; ‘wrongful gain’ – Definition – Penal Code, 1860. [Para 13]

                              Case Law Cited
     Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Admn. & Ors. (1998) 8
     SCC 745; Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. v. State of
     Bihar & Anr. [2000] 2 SCR 859 : (2000) 4 SCC 168; Sheila
     Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. [2018] 4 SCR 439 : (2018) 7 SCC
     581 – relied on.

                                List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; National Building Code of India, 2016.

                             List of Keywords
     Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC; Cheating; Forgery; No Objection
     Certificate (NOC); Fire NOC; NOC from Fire Department; Alleged
     forged Fire NOC; Alleged fake document; Original fabricated
     document not recovered; Fire Department; District Fire Officer;
60                                                                [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       Educational buildings; Educational institution; Recognition/renewal
       of affiliation of educational institutions; Alleged false representation;
       False representation of material fact; mens rea; Dishonest intention;
       Dishonest inducement; Wrongful loss; Wrongful gain; Building
       height below 15 metres; Non-multi-storeyed building.

                                Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       3951 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 18.04.2024 of the High Court
       of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in CRLP No. 2197 of 2021

                              Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv., Rohit Bharadwaj, B. Shravanth Shanker,
       Ms. Prerna Robin, Ms. Grahita Agarwal, Lalit Mohan, B. Yeshwanth
       Raj.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Gautam Bhatia, Dhruv
       Yadav.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                     Judgment

       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 Penal Code, 18601.
3.     Appellant’s society namely, JVRR Education Society is running a
       college since 2016 from a non-multi-storeyed building comprising
       ground – 03 upstairs, with a height of 14.20 metres. On 13.07.2018,
       one V. Sreenivasa Reddy, District Fire Officer, Kurnool, submitted a


1     Hereinafter “IPC”.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                          61

     Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.


      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 certificate2
      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
      Council of Educational Research and Training3 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
      as genuine to play fraud on the Education Department and District
      Fire Office, Kurnool, which is punishable under Section 420 IPC.
5.    Admittedly, as per National Building Code of India, 2016,4 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.


2    Hereinafter “NOC”.
3    Hereinafter “SCERT”.
4    Rule 4.6.1.4, National Building Code of India.
62                                                           [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


7.    It is contended that as a counter-blast, the present criminal case came
      to be registered to intimidate and harass the appellant. In 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.
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”.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                              63

    Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.


             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:
             ““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.
14. In Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Admn. & Ors.,5 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…”
15. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.,6
    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


5   (1998) 8 SCC 745, para 3.
6   (2000) 4 SCC 168, paras 13-15.
64                                                          [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                                   Supreme Court Reports


       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 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 465 IPC.7
    In fact, the original fabricated document had not been recovered.
19. In Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj & Anr.,8 this Court held to
    attract Section 464 IPC,9 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.



7     Punishment for forgery.
8     (2018) 7 SCC 581, para 25.
9     Making a false document.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                       65

     Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.


20. Similarly, offences under Section 468 IPC10 and Section 471 IPC11
    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 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.

      Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




      †
          Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey




10   Forgery for purpose of cheating.
11   Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.