Cheating requires both deception and dishonest inducement, resulting in wrongful loss or gain (Sections 23–25 IPC). Mere deception is insufficient unless it induces a person to part with property or act in a way they would not have otherwise
I. Introduction
The Supreme Court of India in Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2025 INSC 1096, decided on 10 September 2025) addressed the scope of criminal liability in cases where regulatory non-compliance is alleged. The Court, speaking through Justice Joymalya Bagchi (with Justice B.V. Nagarathna concurring), quashed criminal proceedings under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), against the appellant.
The decision provides a nuanced clarification of the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery under the IPC, particularly in situations where regulatory requirements are either misinterpreted or not applicable.
II. Factual Background
The appellant, Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy, managed the JVRR Education Society, which has operated a college in Kurnool since 2016. The institution’s building, measuring 14.20 metres in height, fell below the 15-metre threshold specified in the National Building Code of India, 2016. Under Rule 4.6.1.4 of the Code, buildings below this height are not required to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Fire Department.
In 2018, however, the District Fire Officer lodged a complaint alleging that the institution had secured recognition from the School Education Department by submitting a forged NOC. An FIR was registered under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 IPC, which culminated in a chargesheet limited to Section 420 IPC.
Earlier, in W.P. No. 14542/2018, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had directed that affiliation be renewed without insisting upon a fire NOC for buildings below 15 metres. A subsequent contempt notice was issued in 2019 for non-compliance with this order, leading the appellant to argue that the criminal proceedings were instituted as a retaliatory measure.
III. Proceedings Before the High Court
In Criminal Petition No. 2197 of 2021, the appellant sought quashing of the proceedings before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. By order dated 18 April 2024, the High Court refused to intervene, holding that the necessity of an NOC could not be determined at the preliminary stage and should be considered at trial.
IV. Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was called upon to determine:
-
Whether the use of an allegedly forged fire NOC amounted to “cheating” under Section 420 IPC.
-
Whether the allegations disclosed offences of forgery under Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC.
-
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings was justified despite the prior writ order exempting such institutions from producing an NOC.
V. Court’s Analysis
A. Ingredients of Cheating under Section 420 IPC
The Court reiterated that cheating requires both deception and dishonest inducement, resulting in wrongful loss or gain (Sections 23–25 IPC). Mere deception is insufficient unless it induces a person to part with property or act in a way they would not have otherwise.
Citing 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], the Court underscored that intention is the gist of the offence.
Here, recognition of the institution was not contingent upon production of an NOC, given the building height was below 15 metres. Therefore, even if a forged NOC was presented, it could not be said to have materially induced the Education Department to act differently.
B. Allegations of Forgery
The Court also addressed charges under Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC. In Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj [(2018) 7 SCC 581], it was held that only the maker of a false document can be held guilty of forgery. The prosecution had neither recovered the original alleged NOC nor demonstrated that the appellant was its author.
The absence of evidence of mens rea or wrongful gain further undermined the allegations. Thus, the requirements for forgery under Sections 464–471 IPC were not satisfied.
VI. Holding
The Court held that the High Court had erred in refusing to quash proceedings despite clear judicial precedent and the operative writ order exempting the institution from requiring an NOC. Accordingly, the Supreme Court:
-
Set aside the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 18 April 2024.
-
Quashed proceedings in C.C. No. 303/2020 under Section 420 IPC.
-
Noted that continuation of such proceedings would amount to harassment in light of the legal position.
VII. Significance and Implications
The ruling carries important implications for criminal jurisprudence:
-
Regulatory Compliance vs. Criminal Liability: Not every alleged irregularity in administrative procedures constitutes a criminal offence. Where statutory requirements are inapplicable, criminal prosecution is unwarranted.
-
Materiality of Representation: For cheating to be established, the false representation must be material to the decision-making process and must induce wrongful gain or loss.
-
Forgery Standards: The decision reinforces that prosecution under forgery provisions requires proof of authorship of the false document. Mere reliance on a document, without evidence of its creation, is insufficient.
-
Judicial Safeguards Against Abuse: The Court’s intervention reflects judicial commitment to preventing misuse of criminal law as a retaliatory or coercive measure when civil or regulatory remedies are available.
VIII. Conclusion
Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy serves as a reminder that criminal law must not be invoked to settle regulatory disputes or administrative disagreements. By clarifying the limits of Sections 420 and 465–471 IPC, the Supreme Court has reinforced a critical distinction between civil/regulatory irregularities and criminal offences. The judgment strengthens procedural fairness by ensuring that criminal prosecution remains a tool for genuine wrongs, not a mechanism of harassment.