Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal and quashed proceedings against the appellant’s educational society under Section 420 IPC. The Court held that since the building of the appellant’s institution was below 15 metres in height, no Fire Department No-Objection Certificate (NOC) was legally required for obtaining or renewing recognition. Therefore, even if a forged NOC was submitted, it did not constitute “cheating” under Section 420 IPC because no wrongful gain or wrongful loss was caused to anyone. The Court further held that the ingredients of forgery under Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC were also not met, as there was no evidence connecting the appellant to the creation of the alleged forged document.
Facts
The appellant’s society has been running a college since 2016 in a building of height 14.20 metres. In July 2018, the District Fire Officer, Kurnool, complained that the college had obtained recognition by submitting a forged NOC purportedly issued by the Fire Department. An FIR was registered in 2018 under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 IPC.
The charge sheet alleged that the appellant submitted a xerox copy of a fake fire NOC to the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) for recognition. However, the original alleged forged NOC was never recovered. Importantly, under Rule 4.6.1.4 of the National Building Code of India, 2016, educational buildings below 15 metres in height did not require fire NOCs.
The appellant, along with other institutions, had filed a writ petition in 2018, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the Education Department to grant renewal of affiliation without insisting on a fire NOC. A contempt notice was later issued against the Department for not complying. The appellant argued that the criminal case was a counterblast to the contempt proceedings.
Issues
- Whether submission of an alleged forged NOC constituted cheating under Section 420 IPC when no NOC was legally required.
- Whether the allegations disclosed essential ingredients of forgery under Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC.
- Whether continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant was an abuse of process of law.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that since the college building was less than 15 metres high, no NOC was required as per the National Building Code and the High Court’s writ order. Thus, the allegation that a forged NOC was used could not amount to cheating, as there was no dishonest inducement or wrongful gain/loss.
It was further contended that the original alleged forged NOC was never recovered, and there was no evidence linking the appellant to its creation. The prosecution case was a mala fide attempt to harass the appellant due to prior contempt proceedings initiated against the authorities.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State contended that the appellant had dishonestly used a fake NOC to obtain recognition/renewal of affiliation and thereby misrepresented possession of a valid NOC. Even if the building did not require such NOC, the act of producing a forged document amounted to fraud and justified prosecution under Section 420 IPC.
The respondents further argued that use of a forged document, regardless of its necessity, showed dishonest intention and could not be ignored at the preliminary stage.
Analysis of the Law
The Court carefully examined the ingredients of Section 420 IPC. It reiterated that deception alone does not constitute cheating; there must be dishonest or fraudulent inducement resulting in wrongful gain or wrongful loss. Since recognition/renewal was not dependent on a fire NOC for buildings under 15 metres, any representation about having an NOC could not have induced the Education Department to act differently. Thus, the essential ingredient of dishonest inducement was absent
.
The Court also reviewed the offences of forgery under Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC. It held that forgery requires proof that the accused made the false document or used it with dishonest intent to cause wrongful loss or gain. In this case, the alleged forged NOC was never recovered, and no evidence connected the appellant to its creation. Therefore, the basic elements of forgery were not satisfied.
Precedent Analysis
- Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Administration (1998) 8 SCC 745 – Held that deception alone does not amount to cheating without dishonest inducement.
- Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168 – Clarified that intention is the gist of cheating under Section 415 IPC; mere false representation is insufficient without inducement.
- Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (2018) 7 SCC 581 – Held that to prove forgery under Section 464 IPC, prosecution must establish that the accused made the false document. Mere use of a document without proof of making is insufficient.
Applying these precedents, the Court concluded that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose the offences of cheating or forgery.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that since no NOC was required for the appellant’s building, its alleged false representation of possessing an NOC could not have materially induced the Education Department in granting recognition. In the absence of wrongful loss or wrongful gain, the offence of cheating could not be made out.
On forgery, the Court highlighted that the prosecution had not recovered the original alleged forged document, nor had it connected the appellant with its creation. Without proof of authorship, charges of forgery could not stand.
The Court also criticised the High Court for failing to consider these aspects and for refusing to quash the proceedings despite clear absence of ingredients of the alleged offences.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, quashed the criminal proceedings in CC No. 303/2020 under Section 420 IPC, and allowed the appeal. It held that continuing prosecution in such circumstances would amount to abuse of process of law.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that criminal prosecution for cheating or forgery cannot be sustained in the absence of essential ingredients of the offences. It highlights the principle that false representations are punishable only when they induce wrongful gain or wrongful loss. The ruling also strengthens protection against harassment through frivolous criminal cases, particularly where regulatory requirements (like fire NOCs) are clarified by law and court orders.
FAQs
Q1. Does submission of a forged document always amount to cheating under Section 420 IPC?
No. Cheating requires dishonest inducement leading to wrongful gain or loss. If the document is immaterial to the decision-making, no offence is made out.
Q2. Why did the Court quash the forgery charges?
Because the original alleged forged NOC was never recovered, and no evidence connected the appellant to its creation, which is a prerequisite for forgery charges.
Q3. What was the significance of the building’s height in this case?
Since the building was below 15 metres, the National Building Code did not require a fire NOC, making the alleged forged NOC irrelevant to recognition or renewal of the institution.