LexJUPALLY LAKSHMIKANTHA REDDY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 58 : 2025 INSC 1096 Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 3951 of 2025) 10 September 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the proceedings u/s.420, IPC against the appellant. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 465, 468, 471 – National Building Code of India, 2016 – Appellant’s society was running an educational institution from a building having height of 14.20 metres – FIR was filed u/ss.420, 465, 468, 471; chargesheet filed u/s.420 alleged that the appellant had created a forged Fire NOC and used it to obtain recognition/renewal of affiliation for his institution – High Court refused to quash the proceedings – Challenge to: Held: 1.1 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. [Para 13] 1.2 Further, admittedly, NOC from the Fire Department was not necessary for recognition/renewal of affiliation of educational institutions which are imparting education from the buildings having height below 15 metres – Thus, NOC from the Fire Department was not necessary for grant of such recognition/renewal of affiliation as admittedly, the height of the appellant’s building was below 15 metres – Therefore, 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. [Paras 10, 16] * Author [2025] 10 S.C.R. 59 Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. 1.3 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. [Para 16] 1.4 Moreover, there is nothing on record to show the appellant had manufactured the alleged fake document which is a sine qua non to attract s.465 IPC – In fact, the original fabricated document was not even recovered. [Para 18] 1.5 Similarly, offences u/s.468 and s.471 are also not attracted, as the requisite mens rea, i.e., dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the Education Department and wrongful gain to himself was not demonstrated as the issuance of the recognition was not dependent on the production of the alleged forged NOC. [Para 20] 1.6 Essential ingredients of cheating or forgery not disclosed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Proceedings u/s.420 quashed. [Para 21] Penal Code, 1860 – s.420 – Ingredients, enumerated. [Para 12] Words and Phrases – ‘dishonestly’; ‘fraudulently’; ‘wrongful loss’; ‘wrongful gain’ – Definition – Penal Code, 1860. [Para 13] Case Law Cited Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Admn. & Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 745; Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. [2000] 2 SCR 859 : (2000) 4 SCC 168; Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. [2018] 4 SCR 439 : (2018) 7 SCC 581 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; National Building Code of India, 2016. List of Keywords Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC; Cheating; Forgery; No Objection Certificate (NOC); Fire NOC; NOC from Fire Department; Alleged forged Fire NOC; Alleged fake document; Original fabricated document not recovered; Fire Department; District Fire Officer; 60 [2025] 10 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Educational buildings; Educational institution; Recognition/renewal of affiliation of educational institutions; Alleged false representation; False representation of material fact; mens rea; Dishonest intention; Dishonest inducement; Wrongful loss; Wrongful gain; Building height below 15 metres; Non-multi-storeyed building. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3951 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.04.2024 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in CRLP No. 2197 of 2021 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv., Rohit Bharadwaj, B. Shravanth Shanker, Ms. Pre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.