The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the Appellant, Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy, Chairman of JVRR Education Society, who was accused of using a forged fire safety NOC to obtain recognition for his college.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi held that the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery were not satisfied, since under the National Building Code, 2016, no fire NOC was required for educational institutions housed in buildings below 15 metres. The appellant’s building was 14.20 metres high.
The appellant ran a college from a building of height 14.20 meters. The District Fire Officer lodged a complaint alleging that the appellant’s society used a forged No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Fire Department to obtain recognition from the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT). However, according to the National Building Code of India, 2016, educational institutions operating from buildings below 15 meters in height were not required to furnish a fire NOC. A writ petition was filed by the appellant’s society, and the High Court ordered the Education Department to renew the affiliation without insisting on a fire NOC. In apparent retaliation, a criminal case was filed under Section 420 IPC and related forgery sections, which the High Court refused to quash.
Senior Advocate Sridhar Potaraju, appearing for the appellant, argued that since the building height was below 15 metres, no fire NOC was required for recognition or renewal. Therefore, even assuming a fake NOC was produced, it could not have induced the Education Department to grant recognition, as it was not a material requirement. Hence, the fundamental element of dishonest inducement under Section 420 IPC was missing.
On the other hand, counsel for the State contended that the appellant knowingly used a fake NOC and the “contours of forgery” were evident even if the charge was under Section 420 IPC.
The Court agreed with the appellant, observing that recognition/renewal was not contingent on a fire NOC in this case. Accordingly, the alleged misrepresentation was not a “material fact” inducing the Education Department, a necessary element for cheating.
On forgery allegations, the Court stressed that the original fabricated document was never recovered and there was no evidence linking the appellant to its creation – a “sine qua non” for Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench held that the uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet did not disclose the ingredients of cheating or forgery. It set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order and quashed the proceedings before the Trial Court.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Shridhar Potaraju, AOR B. Shravanth Shanker, Advocates Rohit Bharadwaj, Prerna Robin, Grahita Agarwal, Lalit Mohan and B. Yeshwanth Raj appeared for the Appellants.
AOR Guntur Pramod Kumar, Advocates Prerna Singh and Dhruv Yadav for the Respondents
