No Offence Of Cheating Under S.420 IPC If Forged Document Didn't Induce Grant Of Material Benefit : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (Sep. 10) quashed a cheating case against the head of an educational institute accused of using a fake Fire Department NOC for seeking affiliation.  

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi held that the alleged submission of a forged Fire Department No-Objection Certificate (NOC) to secure recognition for a college could not amount to cheating or forgery, as the document was neither legally required for the grant of affiliation nor materially induced the Education Department to grant affiliation.

The appellant, head of an educational society, operated a college in a building with a height of 14.20 metres. A criminal case was initiated alleging that he submitted a forged fire safety NOC to the Education Department. Based on the complaint of the District Fire Officer, the police filed a charge sheet under Section 420 IPC (cheating), although the forged document was not recovered.

Under the National Building Code, 2016, fire safety NOCs are not required for educational buildings below 15 metres. The High Court had earlier directed the Education Department to renew affiliations without insisting on NOCs for such buildings, and even initiated contempt proceedings for non-compliance.

The appellant argued that there was no cheating as dishonest inducement leading to the granting of affiliation to its educational institution was absent, because of 'no requirement' to submit a fire NOC for buildings below 15 meters in height.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Bagchi, before deciding the case, discussed the ingredients of the offence of cheating 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.”

“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.”, the court added.

Applying the law to the facts of the case, the Court observed that dishonest inducement was absent. Since the appellant was legally entitled to recognition without an NOC, no wrongful gain accrued to him, nor wrongful loss to the Education Department. The alleged deception was immaterial to the grant of recognition.

“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.”, the court observed.

The Court also held that offences under Section 468 IPC and Section 471 IPC, related to making of false document and forgery, 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.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 893

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR Ms. Prerna Robin, Adv. Ms. Grahita Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Mr. B. Yeshwanth Raj, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Gautam Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv.