Introduction

In Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2025 INSC 1096 (decided on 10 September 2025), the Supreme Court of India set aside criminal proceedings alleging cheating based on the supposed use of a forged fire safety no-objection certificate (NOC) to secure or renew recognition for an educational institution. The Court held that where the regulatory document in question (here, a Fire Department NOC) is not legally required for the administrative decision sought (recognition/renewal of affiliation), a false representation about such a document cannot amount to “cheating” under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) because there is no material, dishonest inducement of the authority. The Court also reaffirmed that prosecution for “forgery” demands proof that the accused made the false document (the “maker” requirement), and that forgery-related offences cannot be sustained without the requisite mens rea and a nexus to wrongful gain/loss.

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction). Bench: B.V. Nagarathna, J. and Joymalya Bagchi, J. (author). Appeal from: Judgment dated 18.04.2024 in Criminal Petition No. 2197/2021 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which had refused to quash CC No. 303/2020.

Parties: Appellant – Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy (linked to JVRR Education Society, running a college). Respondents – State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. The case arises from an FIR alleging that the appellant used a forged Fire NOC to obtain recognition/renewal of affiliation.

Background context: The appellant’s institution operates from a building 14.20 metres in height. Under the National Building Code of India, 2016 (NBC 2016), a Fire Department NOC was not required for educational buildings under 15 metres. Even prior to the criminal case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court (W.P. No. 14542/2018) had directed the Education Department to renew affiliation without insisting on a Fire NOC for such buildings. A later contempt notice issued for non-compliance preceded the lodging of the criminal complaint by the District Fire Officer.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court quashed CC No. 303/2020 under Section 420 IPC, holding that the essential ingredient of cheating—dishonest or fraudulent inducement causing wrongful gain/loss or compelling the victim to act/omit—was absent because a Fire NOC was not legally necessary for recognition/renewal when the building was below 15 metres.
• The Court emphasized the statutory definitions of “dishonestly” (Section 24 IPC), “fraudulently” (Section 25 IPC), and “wrongful gain/loss” (Section 23 IPC) and reiterated that mere deception is insufficient; there must be a material link between the misrepresentation and the decision sought to be induced.
• On forgery allegations: The prosecution failed to show that the appellant made the alleged forged NOC (sine qua non under Section 464 for punishment under Section 465 IPC), and the original fabricated document was not recovered. Consequently, Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC could not be sustained on the record.
• The High Court erred in declining to quash at the threshold; the uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet, when read with the writ order recognizing that no Fire NOC was required, did not disclose the basic ingredients of cheating or forgery offences.

Factual Background and Procedural History

• 2016: JVRR Education Society runs a college from a non-multi-storeyed building with a height of 14.20 metres.
• 25.04.2018: In W.P. No. 14542/2018, the High Court directs renewal of affiliation for such institutions without insisting on a Fire NOC (NBC 2016 exempts educational buildings below 15 metres).
• 13–15.07.2018: District Fire Officer, Kurnool lodges a complaint; FIR registered (Crime No. 99/2018) under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC alleging submission of a forged Fire NOC to the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT).
• 01.07.2019: Contempt notice issued for non-compliance with the writ direction (Education and Fire Departments).
• Chargesheet: Filed under Section 420 IPC alone; the alleged forged document was not recovered; accusation that the appellant created and used a forged Fire NOC to obtain recognition/renewal.
• 18.04.2024: High Court refuses to quash, stating the necessity of a Fire NOC cannot be decided at a preliminary stage.
• 10.09.2025: Supreme Court allows the appeal, sets aside the High Court order, and quashes the criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC.

Analysis

1) Statutory Framework and Elements

The Court surveyed the core ingredients of cheating (Sections 415/420 IPC) and the definitional provisions that inform those ingredients:

• Cheating (Section 415) requires deception plus:
  • Fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver property or consent to its retention, or
  • Intentional inducement to do/omit something they would not otherwise do/omit, causing or likely causing damage or harm in body, mind, reputation, or property.
• “Dishonestly” (Section 24) means doing something with intention of causing wrongful gain to one or wrongful loss to another.
• “Fraudulently” (Section 25) means with intent to defraud.
• “Wrongful gain/loss” (Section 23) turns on unlawful means concerning property to which one is not legally entitled.

For forgery:

• Section 464 defines “making a false document”; proving the accused is the maker is essential to attract punishment under Section 465 IPC.
• Section 468 punishes forgery for the purpose of cheating; the intent to cheat (and thus the prospect of dishonest inducement) is central.
• Section 471 punishes using as genuine a forged document; the Court, in this factual setting, tied its applicability to the presence of dishonest intention leading to wrongful gain/loss, and the nexus of the document to the decision it purportedly influences.

2) Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Administration, (1998) 8 SCC 745:

  The Court relied on this authority to stress that “mere deception” does not constitute cheating. There must be dishonest inducement—i.e., an intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss—triggered by the deception, leading to delivery/retention of property or an act/omission causing harm. This case anchors the materiality requirement: a misrepresentation must be capable of and actually operate to induce the victim in a way that the law recognizes as “cheating.”

• Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State Of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168:

  This decision distinguishes the two limbs of Section 415: (i) fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver property, and (ii) intentional inducement to do/omit an act causing or likely causing harm. Crucially, intention at the time of inducement is the gist of the offence. The Supreme Court used this framework to evaluate whether the alleged false NOC could have induced the Education Department to act, when the law did not require a Fire NOC at all for the building in question.

• Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581:

  The Court reaffirmed that to prosecute for forgery under Sections 464/465, the prosecution must prove the accused made the false document. Mere benefit from or use of a document, without proof of making, does not meet the threshold for forgery. Here, the alleged forged NOC was not recovered and there was no material connecting the appellant to its making; thus, a forgery charge could not be sustained.

3) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning proceeds in clear stages:

1. Legal irrelevance of the Fire NOC:

   The NBC 2016 exempts educational buildings below 15 metres from requiring a Fire NOC. The appellant’s building was 14.20 metres. A prior writ order (25.04.2018, W.P. No. 14542/2018) had already directed renewal without insisting on such NOC. Hence, the presence or absence of a Fire NOC was legally immaterial to recognition/renewal.

2. No material, dishonest inducement:

   Because a Fire NOC was not required, a representation that the appellant had such an NOC could not have induced the Education Department to grant recognition/renewal. The indispensable link between a false representation and the victim’s decision—necessary for cheating—was missing. With no prospect of wrongful gain/loss arising from reliance on an immaterial fact, the mental element of “dishonesty” was unsatisfied.

3. Forgery offences not attracted on the record:
   • Section 465 (read with Section 464): Absent proof that the appellant made the false document—indeed, the original alleged forged NOC was not recovered—the “maker” requirement was unmet (per Sheila Sebastian).
   • Section 468: If cheating is legally untenable (no intent to dishonestly induce), forgery “for the purpose of cheating” cannot stand.
   • Section 471: On these facts, the Court found the requisite mens rea (dishonest intention leading to wrongful gain/loss) not demonstrated because the document could not influence recognition in law. Thus, using a forged document that is legally irrelevant to the administrative outcome does not, without more, fulfill the mental element the Court required.
4. High Court’s error on quashing:

   The High Court declined to quash, reasoning that the necessity of a Fire NOC could not be examined at the preliminary stage. The Supreme Court held otherwise: given the undisputed legal position (NBC 2016 and the writ order), the uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. In such a scenario, quashing was warranted. Although not expressly cited, the approach aligns with the well-settled principle that where the allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute an offence, continuation of the criminal process is an abuse of process.

4) Impact and Implications

This decision is likely to have significant consequences across regulatory and criminal enforcement contexts:

• Materiality doctrine for Section 420 IPC:

  The judgment sharpens the requirement that the alleged false representation must be material to, and actually capable of, inducing the authority’s decision. If the representation pertains to a requirement that the law does not impose, cheating cannot be made out.

• Nexus requirement for forgery-related offences:

  For Section 468, intent to cheat is indispensable; if “cheating” collapses for want of material inducement, 468 generally fails. For Section 471, while “knowledge of forgery” is a classic ingredient, this judgment underscores that absent dishonest intent and a nexus to wrongful gain/loss in the context of the transaction at hand, a prosecution may not lie—especially where the document is legally irrelevant to the outcome.

• Reinforcement of the “maker” rule under Sections 464/465 IPC:

  Prosecutors must prove who made the false document. Where the original is not recovered and no evidence connects the accused to its creation, a conviction under Section 465 cannot be sustained. Beneficiaries or users can, in appropriate cases, be prosecuted under Section 471, but the mental element and contextual nexus remain critical.

• Guarding against criminalization of regulatory disputation:

  The ruling discourages the use of cheating/forgery charges as a pressure tactic in disputes over regulatory compliance where the asserted requirement is inapplicable. Investigating agencies must align charges with the actual legal framework and avoid imputing offences based on immaterial conditions.

• Administrative law and criminal law interface:

  Where a prior judicial order or clear statutory rule establishes that a regulatory precondition is inapplicable, criminal allegations premised on that precondition will be scrutinized at the threshold. This fosters legal certainty and prevents abuse of process.

5) Caveats and Limits

• If the building height had been 15 metres or more, making a Fire NOC mandatory, and if the authority relied on a forged NOC, the outcome could be different. In that scenario, material inducement and dishonest intent might be sustainable.
• Section 471 prosecutions remain viable in cases where the accused knowingly uses a forged document as genuine with dishonest intent, even if they did not make it. This judgment’s reasoning turns on the legal irrelevance of the document to the outcome, and the lack of demonstrated dishonest intent and nexus, on the facts.
• The decision does not immunize all uses of false documents in regulatory settings; it insists on proof of statutory elements—particularly materiality, inducement, and mens rea—before invoking criminal law.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Cheating (Section 420 IPC): Not just lying. It is lying with the purpose and effect of making someone hand over property or do something they wouldn’t otherwise do, causing harm. The lie must be material to the decision.
• Dishonestly (Section 24 IPC): Acting to cause wrongful gain to yourself or wrongful loss to someone else.
• Fraudulently (Section 25 IPC): Acting with intent to defraud—i.e., to deceive someone to their prejudice.
• Wrongful gain/loss (Section 23 IPC): Gaining something you aren’t legally entitled to, or someone else losing something they’re legally entitled to, by unlawful means.
• Making a false document (Section 464 IPC): Creating or altering a document to make it appear it was made or authorized by someone who did not, or at a time/manner different from reality. To punish forgery (Section 465), the prosecution must show the accused is the maker.
• Forgery for the purpose of cheating (Section 468 IPC): Forgery done with the intent that the forged document will be used to cheat—so a cheating intent must be shown.
• Using as genuine a forged document (Section 471 IPC): Presenting a forged document as real, knowing or believing it is forged. This case underscores that prosecutors must still establish the requisite dishonest or fraudulent intent and a contextual nexus to wrongful gain/loss.
• Materiality of misrepresentation: A statement is “material” if it can influence the decision-maker on a legally relevant point. If the law does not require the document, a misstatement about it is not material to the decision.

Key Takeaways

• No Section 420 IPC without a material, dishonest inducement. A misrepresentation about a legally unnecessary document (here, Fire NOC for <15m educational buildings) cannot, by itself, constitute cheating.
• For Section 465 IPC (forgery), the “maker” requirement is decisive; mere use or benefit is insufficient absent proof of making the false document.
• Sections 468 and 471 IPC require mens rea and a nexus to wrongful gain/loss. If the allegedly forged document is legally irrelevant to the outcome, intent to cheat or dishonest use is difficult to infer.
• High Courts can and should quash criminal proceedings at the threshold when uncontroverted allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence, particularly where a clear legal framework (e.g., NBC 2016, prior writ orders) shows the alleged misrepresentation is immaterial.
• Regulatory agencies should avoid criminal prosecution premised on inapplicable requirements; investigative focus must align with the actual law in force.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy crystallizes an important doctrinal point: cheating under Section 420 IPC demands a materially operative misrepresentation that dishonestly induces the victim’s decision. Where the supposed falsehood concerns a requirement the law does not impose, inducement—and therefore cheating—cannot be made out. Concurrently, the Court reinforces the essential architecture of forgery offences: the prosecution must prove that the accused made the false document to attract Section 465 IPC; and for Sections 468/471, the requisite intent and a substantive nexus to wrongful gain/loss must be evident.

Beyond the immediate parties, the ruling promotes principled boundaries between administrative compliance and criminal liability. It cautions against the criminalization of non-issues—especially where judicial or statutory instruments already clarify that a regulatory demand is inapplicable. In the broader legal landscape, the judgment will serve as a robust reference point for quashing prosecutions that hinge on immaterial misrepresentations and for preserving the integrity of cheating and forgery jurisprudence by insisting on proof of all statutory elements, particularly materiality, inducement, and mens rea.