The Supreme Court of India, while quashing a criminal case of cheating, has reaffirmed a crucial point of law: educational institutions housed in buildings under 15 meters in height are not required to obtain a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Fire Department. A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that since the NOC was not a mandatory requirement, the alleged forgery and submission of such a document could not form the basis for a cheating charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The apex court set aside a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, ruling that for a false representation to constitute cheating, it must be a “material fact” that induces a person to act. In this case, the allegedly forged document was legally irrelevant to the process of granting affiliation.
Case Background
The criminal proceedings were initiated against Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy, the correspondent of JVRR Education Society, based on a complaint that a forged fire NOC was submitted to gain recognition from the School Education Department. A chargesheet was subsequently filed under Section 420 IPC.
However, the key fact, as noted by the Supreme Court, was that the society’s college was operating from a building with a height of only 14.20 meters. Under the National Building Code of India, 2016 (Rule 4.6.1.4), educational buildings below 15 meters in height are exempt from the requirement of a fire NOC.
The appellant had previously established this point in a writ petition (WP No. 14542/2018) before the High Court, which had directed the Education Department on April 25, 2018, to renew the college’s affiliation without insisting on the certificate. The appellant contended that the criminal case was initiated as a “counter-blast” after a contempt notice was issued for non-compliance with this order. Despite this, the High Court had refused to quash the criminal case, leading to the present appeal.
The Supreme Court’s Analysis
The crux of the Supreme Court’s analysis rested on the legal non-necessity of the fire NOC for the appellant’s institution. The bench emphasized that the uncontroverted facts, including the earlier High Court order, established that no such certificate was needed.
Justice Bagchi, authoring the judgment, explained that this fact was fatal to the prosecution’s case on cheating. The offence of cheating requires that a false representation dishonestly “induces” a person to do something they otherwise would not. The Court found this essential link to be missing.
The judgment states, “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.”
The Court held that the inducement must be based on a material fact. It observed, “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.”
The bench also dismissed the state’s argument that offences of forgery were made out. The Court reasoned that the mens rea, or dishonest intent to cause wrongful loss or gain, was absent because “the issuance of the recognition was not dependent on the production of the alleged forged NOC.” Furthermore, it noted that no evidence had been presented to show that the appellant had actually “made” the fake document, a prerequisite for a forgery charge.
The Decision
Concluding that the High Court had failed to consider these fundamental issues, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The bench ruled that the allegations in the chargesheet, especially when read in light of the established legal position regarding the fire NOC, did not disclose the essential ingredients of either cheating or forgery.
The Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the entire criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 303 of 2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Nandyal.
