Supreme Court of India
Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. 2025 INSC 1096
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
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.
(Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9744 of 2024)
Dated 10 September 2025
The appeal arose from proceedings against Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy, whose society, JVRR Education Society, has been running a college since 2016 in a building with a height of 14.20 metres. On 13 July 2018, V. Sreenivasa Reddy, District Fire Officer, Kurnool, lodged a written complaint alleging that the college had obtained recognition from the School Education Department by submitting a forged no-objection certificate purportedly issued by the Assistant District Fire Officer, Kurnool. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered at Nandyal III Town Police Station in Crime No. 99/2018 under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC, which later became CC No. 303 of 2020 before the Judicial Magistrate, Nandyal. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Section 420 IPC, alleging that the appellant created a forged NOC and used it as genuine to defraud the Education Department and District Fire Office. However, the alleged fabricated document was never recovered.
According to the National Building Code of India, 2016, a fire NOC was not necessary for educational buildings below 15 metres in height. Since the appellant’s college was housed in a building of 14.20 metres, no such certificate was required. In fact, the appellant and other institutions had filed writ petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court (WP No. 14542/2018), seeking renewal of affiliation without insisting on a fire NOC. By order dated 25 April 2018, the High Court directed the Education Department to renew affiliation without requiring such NOC. When these directions were not complied with, a contempt notice was issued on 1 July 2019 to the Education and Fire Departments. Against this backdrop, the appellant argued that the criminal proceedings were initiated as a counter-blast to harass him. He sought quashing of the case before the High Court, but the High Court refused, holding that the issue of whether a fire NOC was necessary could not be considered at the preliminary stage.
On the charge of forgery, the Court observed that there was no recovery of the alleged fabricated document and no evidence connecting the appellant to its creation. Forgery offences require proof that the accused made or used a false document with dishonest intent, which was absent in this case.
Before the Supreme Court, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery were absent, while the State contended that the use of a fake document was sufficient to attract penal provisions. The Court examined the legal requirements for cheating under Section 420 IPC, which involves deception coupled with dishonest or fraudulent inducement to deliver property or to do or omit something, causing wrongful loss or gain. It referred to the definitions of “dishonestly,” “fraudulently,” “wrongful loss” and “wrongful gain” under Sections 23 to 25 IPC, and relied on precedents including Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Administration (1998) 8 SCC 745 and Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168, which held that deception alone is insufficient unless coupled with dishonest inducement.
Applying these principles, the Court found that since recognition or renehwal of affiliation was not dependent on a fire NOC for buildings under 15 metres, the alleged false representation that the appellant had a valid NOC could not have induced the Education Department to act in a way it otherwise would not have. Hence, the link between deception and inducement was missing, and the offence of cheating was not made out.
On forgery charges, the Court noted that Section 465 IPC requires proof that the accused made a false document, which was absent here as the original NOC was never recovered and no material linked the appellant to its creation. In Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (2018) 7 SCC 581, it was held that to attract Section 464 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused made the false document. Likewise, offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, which deal with forgery for the purpose of cheating and using forged documents as genuine, also require dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss or gain, which was not demonstrated, as recognition was not contingent upon the alleged forged NOC.
The Supreme Court concluded that the uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet, viewed alongside the High Court’s earlier order in WP No. 14542/2018, did not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating or forgery. It held that the High Court failed to consider these issues and erred in refusing to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 18 April 2024 in Criminal Petition No. 2197/2021, quashed CC No. 303 of 2020 under Section 420 IPC, and allowed the appeal.
