Presenting forged documents for obtaining recognition for School - No Cheating

Criminal proceedings quashed stating that the charges did not meet the legal requirements for cheating or forgery

Mr. Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy, was accused of using a forged no-objection certificate (NOC) to obtain recognition for his educational institution from the School Education Department. The legal battle focuses on whether the alleged actions constituted cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code and whether the proceedings should be quashed.

Background:

• Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy's society, JVRR Education Society, has been operating a college since 2016 in a building that is 14.20 meters tall.
• A complaint was lodged by V. Sreenivasa Reddy, District Fire Officer, alleging that the college obtained its recognition certificate by submitting a forged NOC, supposedly issued by the Assistant District Fire Officer, Kurnool.
• Based on this complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered, and a charge sheet was filed under Section 420 of the IPC, accusing Reddy of creating and using a forged document to deceive the Education Department.

Legal Proceedings:

• The critical legal question was whether the NOC from the Fire Department was necessary for the recognition or renewal of affiliation for educational institutions like the appellant's, which are in buildings below 15 meters in height.
• According to the National Building Code of India, 2016, a fire NOC was not necessary for such buildings, which was further supported by a High Court order in a related writ petition that allowed renewal of affiliation without insisting on a fire NOC.
• Despite this, criminal proceedings were initiated, which Reddy argued were retaliatory and intended to harass him.

Supreme Court's Analysis:

• The court examined whether the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC were satisfied, which require:
• 1. Deception by making a false representation.
• 2. Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the victim to part with property or act in a manner they otherwise wouldn't.
• The court found that since an NOC was not mandatory, the alleged false representation did not induce the Education Department to act differently.
• Therefore, the key element of dishonest inducement was missing.

Forgery Charges:

The court also assessed the allegations under Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC, which deal with forgery and using forged documents as genuine.

It concluded that there was no evidence that Reddy manufactured the alleged fake NOC or acted with the requisite mens rea (dishonest intention), as the issuance of recognition was not dependent on the NOC.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Reddy under Section 420 IPC, stating that the charges did not meet the legal requirements for cheating or forgery.

The court set aside the High Court's order, thereby allowing the appeal and disposing of any pending applications related to the case.

In essence, the judgment underscores the importance of establishing the essential elements of criminal offences and the role of procedural safeguards in protecting individuals from unwarranted legal action.

Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2776689