If NOC Was Not Required, There’s No Cheating: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against College for Alleged Use of Forged Fire Certificate

“A false representation must be of a material fact — if the document was not required by law, it cannot induce an act leading to cheating under Section 420 IPC”, In a significant reaffirmation of criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India quashed criminal proceedings against a college operator who was accused of using a forged fire safety NOC to obtain educational recognition. The Court held that no offence of cheating or forgery can stand when the allegedly forged document was not even legally required, and there was no inducement or harm caused by its use.

The Court observed that “To attract penal consequences, it must be shown that the false representation was of a material fact which had induced the victim to act in a manner which they would not otherwise do”, making it clear that mere procedural anomalies cannot give rise to criminal liability in the absence of fraudulent intent and material misrepresentation.

“No Offence of Cheating When No Inducement or Wrongful Gain Is Proven”

The appellant, Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy, runs a college under the aegis of JVRR Education Society, operating from a building measuring 14.20 metres in height. As per Rule 4.6.1.4 of the National Building Code of India, 2016, fire safety NOCs are not required for educational buildings below 15 metres in height.

Despite this, an FIR was lodged on July 15, 2018, based on a complaint by the District Fire Officer, alleging that the college had submitted a forged NOC from the Fire Department to obtain recognition from the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT). The case proceeded under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC, leading to chargesheet in CC No. 303 of 2020.

However, the appellant had already secured a writ order from the Andhra Pradesh High Court on April 25, 2018, in WP No. 14542/2018, directing the Education Department to renew affiliation without insisting on a fire NOC. The SCERT and Fire Department were both parties to the writ and were found non-compliant, leading to a contempt notice.

The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Joymalya Bagchi, held that the criminal case appeared to be a counterblast to the contempt proceedings and the entire premise of the FIR collapsed because there was no legal requirement for a fire NOC in the first place.

“Cheating Requires Deception Plus Inducement — Both Must Coexist”

The Court carefully dissected the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC (Cheating), noting:

“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.”

It cited the landmark case Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, emphasizing that intention is the gist of the offence, and deception alone is not sufficient unless it results in dishonest inducement.

Applying this principle, the Court held: “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.”

Since the recognition was legally not dependent on furnishing an NOC, the alleged submission of a false document, even if assumed to be true, did not mislead the Education Department into doing something it otherwise wouldn’t have done.

“Forgery Charges Fail When the Document Was Neither Created Nor Relied Upon Materially”

Responding to the State’s attempt to salvage the case under forgery charges, the Court held that Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC were also not made out.

“There is nothing on record to show the appellant had manufactured the alleged fake document which is a sine qua non to attract Section 465 IPC.”

The alleged fabricated document was never recovered. Further, no evidence connected the appellant with the creation of the false document, a requirement reiterated by the Court in Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, where it was held that making of a false document is the foundational requirement of forgery.

Moreover, no dishonest intention or wrongful gain could be inferred because the recognition was independently granted by court order, and not because of any fraudulent NOC.

“Criminal Process Cannot Be Weaponized When Legal Prerequisites Are Absent”

In a broader commentary on the abuse of criminal law, the Supreme Court noted:

“The High Court failed to consider these relevant issues which clearly demonstrate that the uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet, in the teeth of order dated 25.04.2018... do not disclose essential ingredients of cheating or forgery.”

Highlighting that criminal law cannot be invoked to settle scores or as a retaliatory measure when civil orders go unfavourable, the Court held that allowing such prosecutions would amount to judicial harassment and misuse of legal machinery.

 “When Law Does Not Require a Document, Its Alleged Forgery Cannot Be Criminal”

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings in CC No. 303/2020, restoring the fundamental principle that criminal prosecution must not proceed in the absence of mens rea and material deception.

By striking down the charges under Section 420 IPC, the Court reaffirmed that criminal law cannot be a substitute for administrative or procedural irregularities, especially when the underlying statutory requirement itself is missing.

Date of Decision: September 10, 2025