1. Complaint alleging copyright infringement regarding a film script script-writing credit; appellant sought discharge and quashing of resultant criminal summons and proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 288
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
Sujoy Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1499 of 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9452 of 2025)
Decided On : 20-03-2026
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Quashing – Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code or Article 226 of Constitution need not restrict itself only to stage of a case but is empowered to take into account overall circumstances leading to initiation/registration of case as well as materials collected in course of investigation.
(2) Summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.
(1) Quashing – Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code or Article 226 of Constitution need not restrict itself only to stage of a case but is empowered to take into account overall circumstances leading to initiation/registration of case as well as materials collected in course of investigation.
(2) Summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.
Subject
Criminal Law - Copyright Infringement
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Copyright Act, 1957 – Sections 63, 65 and 65A – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 387 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Infringement of copyright and deception – Cognizance and summoning order – Summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course – Order of Magistrate summoning accused must reflect application of mind to facts of case and law applicable thereto – Magistrate must carefully scrutinise evidence brought on record and determine whether any offence is prima facie made out – Magistrate may even himself put questions to complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out truthfulness of allegations or otherwise, and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of accused – In present case, complaint only contains bald and unsubstantiated allegations and do not even prima facie disclose similarity between film and script – Dispute Settlement Committee of SWA comprising experts, found no similarity between film and script and dismissed complaint – There is no material on record to prima facie conclude that there was any similarity between appellant’s film and complainant’s script – Proceedings instituted against appellant are manifestly frivolous and vexatious – Complaint case quashed and set aside. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482[Section 528 of BNSS] – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Quashing – When accused seeks quashing of either FIR or criminal proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious or malicious, Court is duty bound to examine the matter with greater care – It will not be just enough for Court to look into averments made in FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether necessary ingredients to constitute alleged offence are disclosed or not – In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from record of case, over and above averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, and try to read in between the lines – Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code or Article 226 of Constitution need not restrict itself only to stage of a case but is empowered to take into account overall circumstances leading to initiation/registration of case as well as materials collected in course of investigation.(Para 14)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand (High Court), whereby petition preferred by the appellant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) has been dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Summoning order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the CJM, and order dated 22.04.2025 passed by High Court, are quashed and set aside. The proceeding in Complaint Case No.1267 of 2017, pending before CJM, Hazaribagh, is quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points extracted with their respective references:
- Jurisdiction for Quashing: The Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or Article 226 of the Constitution, is not restricted to the stage of the case but is empowered to consider overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case and materials collected during investigation (!) (!) .
- Seriousness of Summoning: Summoning an accused is a serious matter; criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course, and the Magistrate's order must reflect an application of mind to the facts and law (!) (!) .
- Magistrate's Duty: The Magistrate must carefully scrutinize evidence, determine if a prima facie case exists, and may even question the complainant and witnesses to ascertain truthfulness before examining if an offence was committed (!) (!) .
- Standard for Quashing Frivolous Proceedings: When proceedings are alleged to be manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or malicious, the Court must examine the matter with greater care, looking beyond the FIR/complaint averments to inspect attending circumstances and read "in between the lines" (!) (!) .
- Nature of Complaint: The complaint in this case contained only bald and unsubstantiated allegations and did not prima facie disclose any similarity between the film and the script (!) (!) .
- Suppression of Evidence: The complainant and witnesses concealed the crucial finding of the SWA Dispute Settlement Committee (dated 24.02.2018), which found no similarity between the works and dismissed the complaint (!) (!) .
- Timeline and Precedence: The appellant's film script was registered on 10.10.2013, whereas the complainant's script was registered later on 31.07.2015, meaning the appellant's work preceded the complainant's, making copyright infringement untenable (!) (!) .
- Non-Application of Mind: The CJM's summoning order was passed mechanically without recording satisfaction regarding similarity between the works, suffering from a vice of non-application of mind (!) (!) .
- Outcome: The summoning order dated 07.06.2018 and the High Court's order dated 22.04.2025 were quashed, and the proceedings in Complaint Case No.1267 of 2017 were set aside as manifestly frivolous and vexatious (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the 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 the 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.
For the 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 the 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.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contended that the complaint was mala fide, lacked similarity in works, and bypassed expert opinions; respondent argued existence of a prima facie case at the summoning stage. (Para 10 , 11 )
3. The Magistrate issued summons mechanically without evidence of copyright infringement, ignoring independent expert findings and the priority of registration of the appellant's work. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. Criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code when complaints are manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or disclose no prima facie offence. (Para 14 , 19 )
5. Appeal allowed; the summoning order and the criminal proceedings against the appellant are quashed and set aside. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. What is the scope of a Magistrate's duty when issuing a summoning order in a criminal complaint?
A Magistrate must reflect application of mind to the facts and law, scrutinizing evidence to determine if an offence is prima facie committed rather than issuing summons as a matter of course. (Para 13 , 17 )
7. Can a Court exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code look beyond the complaint's averments to evaluate the validity of criminal proceedings?
Yes, when proceedings are alleged to be frivolous, vexatious, or malicious, the Court is duty-bound to examine attending circumstances and recorded materials beyond the mere allegations in the complaint. (Para 14 )
8. Does the priority of registration of a literary work defeat a subsequent claim of copyright infringement?
Yes, where the accused's work was registered and authored prior to the complainant's work, the claim of infringement is untenable as the complainant's script did not exist at the time of the appellant's work. (Para 18 )
JUDGMENT
ALOK ARADHE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand (High Court), whereby petition preferred by the appellant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) has been dismissed.
3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant is a film Director and screenwriter. He directed the film titled ‘Kahaani’, which was released on 09.03.2012. The film received wide acclaim, and the appellant was granted National Award for Best Screenplay in 2013. Thereafter on 10.10.2013, the appellant created and registered first half of the script, for the film titled ‘Kahaani-2: Durga Rani Singh’ (Kahaani-2) with Screen Writers Association (SWA).
4. According to the complainant, he travelled to Mumbai and met the appellant and one Prabhat Kumar Thakur (alleged owner of Western India Film Producers Association) on 29.06.2015. 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 31.07.2015. The film directed by the appellant titled ‘Kahaani-2’, was released on 02.12.2016.
5. The complainant filed a complaint on 23.12.2016 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.
6. During the pendency of the proceeding before the said Committee, 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. Accordingly, it was alleged that the appellant had committed offences punishable under Sections 63 , 65, 65A of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Act) and Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
7. However, during the pendency of the proceedings before the CJM, and before order of cognizance could be passed, the Dispute Settlement Committee of SWA consisting of experts, by an order dated 24.02.2018, held that there was no similarity between the appellant’s film and the complainant’s script, consequently rejected the complaint.
8. The CJM, after recording the statements of complainant’s real brother and cousin, by an order dated 07.06.2018 (summoning order) held that there was sufficient material to proceed with the complaint against the appellant and co-accused Prabhat Kumar Thakur, and that a prima facie case under Section 63 of the Act was made out. The summons were accordingly issued.
9. The appellant, thereafter, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. The High Court by an order dated 22.04.2025, 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. The High Court observed that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
10. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the summoning order discloses complete non-application of mind as there is no material on record, even prima facie, to conclude that there was any similarity between the appellant’s film ‘Kahaani-2’ and complainant’s script ‘Sabak’. It is contended that neither the complaint nor statements of witnesses contain any assertion identifying any portion of the complainant’s script that was allegedly copied. It is urged that the complainant deliberately suppressed a crucial document, namely, letter dated 24.02.2018 sent by SWA to the complainant, observing that the expert panel of
