“Supreme Court Rules: No Crime in Using Fake Document That Wasn’t Legally Required”

Case Name: Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. 

Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ___ OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9744 of 2024)

Date: 10 September, 2025

Quorum: Justice B.V. NAGARATHNA & Justice JOYMALYA BAGCHI

Facts 

JVRR Education Society had been operating a college since 2016 from premises measuring 14.20 metres in height. What seemed like routine educational administration would soon spiral into a complex legal battle involving allegations of document forgery.

The trouble began on 13th July 2018, when V. Sreenivasa Reddy, serving as District Fire Officer for Kurnool, lodged a formal complaint. His allegation was serious: the college had supposedly secured its recognition certificate from the School Education Department by presenting a fraudulent No-Objection Certificate, one that appeared to bear the signature of the Assistant District Fire Officer in Kurnool.

Two days later, on 15th July 2018, police registered an FIR under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code—420, 465, 468, and 471. These charges related to cheating and various forms of document forgery. The case eventually progressed to a chargesheet filed under Section 420 IPC, becoming CC No. 303 of 2020.

During investigations, the Inspector of Police (referred to as LW 8 in court documents) discovered something telling. The District Fire Officer had never actually issued the NOC in question. Only a photocopied version had been submitted to the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) when applying for recognition. Crucially, investigators couldn’t locate the original document that was allegedly forged.

According to Rule 4.6.1.4 of the National Building Code of India, 2016, educational buildings under 15 metres don’t actually require fire department clearance. Given that the college building measured just 14.20 metres, this raised questions about whether an NOC was even necessary.

The society wasn’t sitting idle during these proceedings. Along with several other educational institutions, they had approached the High Court through writ petition WP No. 14542/2018. Their request was straightforward—renew their affiliation without demanding a fire NOC. On 25th April 2018, the High Court sided with them, instructing the Education Department to proceed with renewal without requiring fire clearance. When authorities failed to comply, a contempt notice followed on 1st July 2019.

The defence presented by the appellant was also quite simple: according to the appellant, the criminal case was merely a retaliation measure, intended to harass the person and intimidate him. But at the time they tried to quash the proceedings the High Court declined. The rationale behind the decision of the court was that it was not within the proper course of proceedings to find whether an NOC was actually necessary at such an early stage of proceedings. After the ruling of the High Court on 18th April 2024 they appealed to the Supreme Court of India in the hope that they could get a different verdict.

Issues 

• The primary question revolves around whether it’s appropriate to continue criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC against the appellant when they’re accused of using a forged NOC for college recognition. This isn’t simply about whether a document was falsified—it’s about whether pursuing these charges serves any legitimate purpose given the broader circumstances.
• Whether the purported submission of the forged Fire Department NOC constituted cheating or forgery by virtue of the fact the document was not legally a condition to the granting of the affiliation and materially misled the Education Department to grant affiliation.
• Particularly, did the necessary elements of the crimes of cheating (Section 420 IPC), forgery (Section 465 IPC), forgery with intent to cheat (Section 468 IPC) and application of a forged document as genuine (Section 471 IPC) exist in this case.

Legal Provisions Involved 

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

• Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 415: Cheating.
• Section 465: Punishment for forgery.
• Section 468: Forgery for purpose of cheating.
• Section 471: Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.
• Section 464: Making a false document.

National Building Code of India, 2016: Rule 4.6.1.4, which states that an NOC from the Fire Department is not required for educational buildings below 15 metres in height.

Arguments 

Appellant’s Arguments 

• The appellant had successfully challenged both the Education and Fire Departments in court, securing a favourable High Court ruling that exempted them from providing fire clearance. When these departments failed to comply—prompting contempt proceedings—suddenly criminal charges materialised. The appellant argues this wasn’t coincidence but calculated retaliation, a classic case of using criminal process as a weapon in administrative warfare.
• The appellant had a 14.20 metres building which is only slightly under the 15 metres mark that results in fire department clearance regulations as provided in the National Building Code. Assuming that production of a no NOC was not legally obligatory, how could the creation of a single (real or fake) one be considered cheating? The document does not have any relevance with regard to the transaction. It was at law that the Education Department was bound to grant recognition irrespective of the existence of any fire clearance and thus the so-called deception was a nullity.
• Consequently, the purported false representation (with an NOC) could not have induced to grant recognitions to the Education Department dishonestly or fraudulently because they were under the law required to grant them anyway. This was a crucial element of dishonest inducement that was not present.
• The forgery case suffers an even greater fundamental issue that the document supposedly forged is lost. The respondent is wholeheartedly dependent on a photocopied copy and no evidence that the appellant ever produced any fraudulent original. It is correct, the appellant argues that it is impossible to prove that a person has committed a forgery, without proving that he actually committed a forgery, a requirement that apply to Sections 464 and 465 IPC.
• The requisite mens rea (dishonest intention) to cause wrongful loss to the Education Department or wrongful gain to himself was not demonstrated, as the issuance of recognition was not dependent on the production of the alleged forged NOC.
• The Appellant supported his arguments by Judicial Precedents:
  Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Admn. & Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 745: ruled that mere deception was not cheating, there had to be dishonest inducement. Mere presentation of a document (including a forged one) does not amount to fraud in case it has no impact on the decision of the recipient.
  Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 168: Reiterated that in Section 415 IPC, the two aspects are (1) dishonest inducement to delivery of property (intent needs to be found, i.e. fraudulent or dishonest intent) and (2) intentional inducement to perform/ omit an act (intentional intent needs to be proved), the gist of the offence being in intention.
  Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. (2018) 7 SCC 581: explicitly covers the elements of forgery and states that the accused in the application of the Section 464 IPC must prove that he/she actually created the forged document. This precedent is of particular importance since the original document was lost, and the appellant has no evidence of participating in the creation of the original document.

Respondent’s Arguments 

• The appellant dishonestly used a fake NOC from the Fire Department to obtain recognition/renewal of affiliation.
• The respondent finds validation in the High Court’s refusal to quash proceedings at the preliminary stage. This reflects sound judicial practice—complex questions about legal requirements and their relationship to criminal liability aren’t typically resolved through summary dismissal applications.
• Whilst the chargesheet focuses on Section 420 (cheating), they contend that forgery elements are woven throughout the case. The fact that the appellant used a falsified piece of paper is a knowing act and, as such, shows that the appellant was aware of the falsity nature of the piece of paper- a key element in both forgery and cheating cases.

Analysis 

• The Apex Court began with first principles, carefully dissecting what Section 420 IPC actually demands. Cheating isn’t simply about telling lies—it requires a specific chain of causation: fraudulent inducement must be achieved by deception by false representation, and it must have the effect that the victim will part with property or otherwise engage in activity that will result in harm or loss.
• Crucially, the Court observed that it was not disputed that educational institutions located in buildings under 15 metres high did not legally require an NOC by the Fire Department, which was provided under the National Building Code, 2016, and subsequently upheld in the previous writ proceedings. The height of the building occupied by the appellant was 14.20 metres.
• The Court had the rationale that where no NOC was necessary, the falsely made appearance by the appellant to hold an NOC could not have a material effect on the Education Department in granting the recognition or renewing the affiliation. The department had the legal obligation of granting recognition anyway.
• The “vital link” between the alleged false representation and the issuance of recognition/renewal was absent, meaning the essential ingredient of dishonest inducement for cheating was not satisfied. The alleged deception was immaterial.
• The Apex Court reiterated that mere deception is insufficient for cheating; dishonest inducement must be established. The Court’s reasoning became even sharper when addressing the concepts of wrongful gain and loss. Since the appellant was legally entitled to recognition without any fire clearance, obtaining it couldn’t constitute wrongful gain. Similarly, the Education Department suffered no loss by granting something they were legally obligated to provide. This reflects a fundamental principle: criminal law shouldn’t punish people for receiving what they’re already entitled to, even if their methods were questionable.
• The forgery-related charges fared no better under Supreme Court scrutiny. Section 465 IPC requires proof that the accused actually manufactured the false document. With the original document missing and no evidence linking the appellant to its creation, these charges lacked any evidential foundation. More fundamentally, the requisite criminal intent (mens rea) was absent. The Court emphasised that dishonest intention must be directed towards causing wrongful loss or gain. Since recognition didn’t depend on the NOC’s existence, there was no basis for inferring such dishonest intent.
• The Court concluded that the High Court failed to consider these relevant issues, which clearly showed that the uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet, in light of the High Court’s order in the writ petition, did not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating or forgery.

Judgement 

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi delivered an unambiguous ruling. They set aside the High Court’s order dated 18th April 2024 in Criminal Petition No. 2197/2021, effectively overturning the High court’s refusal to quash proceedings. More significantly, they proceeded to quash CC No. 303/2020 under Section 420 IPC entirely, bringing the criminal case to a definitive end.

The appeal filed by Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy was allowed.

The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi held that the alleged submission of a forged Fire Department NOC could not amount to cheating or forgery, as the document was neither legally required nor materially induced the Education Department to grant affiliation.

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court struck a fatal blow against the case of the respondent and ruled that not only was the criminal process on cheating and forgery against Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy unsustainable, but also put a stop to it wholly. The fact on which the Court based its rationale was a simple legal fact: the building of the educational institution was less than 15 metres high and no Fire Department No-Objection Certificate was needed to be recognised or affiliated with in accordance with the National Building Code, which made any so-called submission of a falsified NOC meaningless in legal terms. This discovery was lethal to the respondent since despite conceding that what they said they had fraudulently referred to as a forgery, they could not have had the forged document misrepresentatively cause the Education Department to offer them the recognition since the department was under legal obligation to offer them the recognition irrespective of their submission of the NOC. The Court also observed that such a state of unmaterial inducement, and that, on top of this, there was no evidence at all that the appellant had prepared the contested document, and that he had the necessary dishonest intention to carry on with the alleged offences, vacated the criminal case at its very core.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY ABHINAV VERMA

For further reading please read here: Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.