Supreme Court: While deliberating over this appeal filed by Director and Screenwriter Sujoy Ghosh (appellant) revolving around his alleged wrongful copying and use of complainant’s script titled “Sabak” to produce the film “Kahaani 2” which led to institution of proceedings against him; the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe*, JJ., allowed the appeal finding that the appellant’s work had preceded the complainant’s script hence the question of copyright infringement does not arise as the complainant’s script was not even in existence when the appellant registered his screenplay for “Kahaani 2”.
Background and Contentions
The appellant is a national award-winning Director and Screenwriter. His film titled “Kahaani” released on 9 March 2012 which received wide acclaim. Thereafter on 10 October 2013, the appellant created and registered first half of the script, for the film titled “Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh” (Kahaani 2) with Screenwriters Association (SWA).
The complainant stated that he travelled to Mumbai and met the appellant and the alleged owner of Western India Film Producers Association on 29 June 2015. The complainant sought a recommendation letter required for registering a film script and allegedly left a copy of his script titled “Sabak” with the appellant. The complainant claims that he registered the script “Sabak” with SWA on 31 July 2015. In the meanwhile, “Kahaani 2”, was released on 2 December 2016.
The complainant filed a complaint on 23 December 2016 before the SWA alleging that the film “Kahaani 2” infringed the copyright of his script “Sabak”. The dispute was referred to SWA Dispute Settlement Committee. During the pendency of proceedings before SWA, the complainant filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh (CJM), alleging that he had authored the script titled “Sabak” and shared the same with the appellant, and that the appellant produced the film “Kahaani 2” using his script without permission; therefore, the appellant had committed offences punishable under Sections 63, 65 and 65-A, Copyright Act, 1957 (Act) and Section 387, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The SWA consisting of experts, by an order dated 24 February 2018, held that there was no similarity between “Kahaani 2” and the script of “Sabak”, and consequently rejected the complaint. While the CJM decided that there was sufficient material to proceed against the appellant, and that a prima facie case under Section 63 of the Act was made out. Consequently, summons were issued.
Aggrieved with the aforestated, the appellant approached Jharkhand High Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The High Court held that Magistrate’s role at summoning stage is limited to ascertain whether sufficient ground exists to proceed. It was further held that the complaint contained direct and specific allegations of copyright infringement, the veracity of which has to be tested during trial. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s quashment petition.
Aggrieved with the High Court’s decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The appellant contended that neither the complaint nor statements of witnesses contain any assertion identifying any portion of the complainant’s script that was allegedly copied. Furthermore, it was submitted that script of “Kahaani 2” was registered much prior to complainant’s script and, therefore, the complaint is malicious in nature and constitutes abuse of process of law.
Per contra, the complainant submitted that CJM on examination of the complaint, supporting documents and statements of the witnesses, found sufficient ground to proceed against the appellant for offence under Section 63 of the Act.
Court’s Assessment
Perusing the case, the Court explained that principles governing summoning of an accused in a criminal case and parameters for quashing criminal proceedings are well-settled. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto and must involve careful scrutiny of the evidence. The Court further explained that when an accused seeks quashment of proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious or malicious, the Court is duty-bound to examine the matter with greater care. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.
After elucidating the aforestated legal principles, the Court delved into the facts of the case and perused the complaint. The Court pointed out that the complaint only contained bald and unsubstantiated allegations and did not even prima facie disclose the similarity between the film “Kahaani 2” and the script of “Sabak”. The Court further noted that the SWA Committee comprising experts, found no similarity in the film and script and dismissed the complaint.
The Court further pointed out that there was no material on record to prima facie conclude that there was any similarity between appellant’s film and complainant’s script. In the summoning order, the CJM failed to record the satisfaction that there is any similarity between the appellant’s film and the complainant’s script. The summoning order, therefore, was passed in mechanical manner and suffered from non-application of mind. The High Court also failed to appreciate that the summoning order was passed without any application of mind and in the absence of sufficient material on record.
The Court thereafter examined the timeline of script submissions, film release, etc. and noted that “Kahaani 2” was the sequel of “Kahaani”. The synopsis for the sequel was registered by the appellant on 10 December 2012 under the title “Kolkata”. The partial script of the said film, then titled “Durga Rani Singh”, was registered on 10 October 2013. The full script of the said film, then titled “Karaar”, was registered on 2 December 2013. The complainant went to Mumbai in 2015 whereby he registered the script for “Sabak”. Therefore, the appellant’s work clearly preceded the complainant’s script in point of time, and the question of copyright infringement did not arise as the complainant’s script was not even in existence when the appellant registered his screenplay.
With the aforestated assessment, the Court concluded that the proceedings instituted against the appellant were manifestly frivolous and vexatious. Therefore, the Court set aside the summoning order issued by the CJM and also quashed the proceedings pending before CJM.
[Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 454, decided on 20-3-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Alok Aradhe
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Anu Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Shwetank Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Devangini Rai, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Dev Aaryan, Adv. Ms. Preety Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, AOR Mr. S N Kalra, Adv. Mr. Kamal, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Adv. Ms. Vrinda Taneja, Adv. Mr. Mayank, Adv. Ms. Anjali Choudhary, Adv.