ORDER

31.01.2025

CRL.M.A. 3031/2025

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.

The application stands disposed-of.

CRL.M.C. 635/2025 & CRL.M.A. 3030/2025 (stay)

By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 184/2024 dated 01.05.2024 registered under sections 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 („Copyright Act‟) and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟) at P.S.: Greater Kailash,

Delhi and all proceeding emanating therefrom, contending that no offence as alleged in the subject FIR is made-out against the petitioners.

2. The matter arises from an allegation made by respondent No. 2 that the petitioners have violated his copyright to the literary work (being a film script) titled ‘Kabhu Na Chhadein Khet’ conceived in 2006, by using it in a film titled ‘Shamshera’ produced by the petitioners. Furthermore, the allegation is that the petitioners have also committed the offence of cheating by inducing respondent No. 2 into sharing his script with them; and then using that script in the production of their film by violating respondent No. 2’s copyright in the script.

3. Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that other things apart, the allegation of copyright violation made by respondent No.2 are subject matter of a civil suit bearing CS(COMM) No. 483/2022, in which suit, vide judgment dated 20.12.2023 made on I.A. No. 11030/2022 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), a Co-ordinate Bench of this court has dismissed the interim application inter-alia holding as follows :

“38. Having carefully perused the script of the Plaintiff and having viewed the movie including the detailed comparative tables made by both parties on which they have spent considerable labour, I would first give a summary of the scripts of the Plaintiff. Be it noted that admittedly the script of the Plaintiff has five versions and this too was one of the serious objections of the Defendants.

* * * * * *

“49. … … There is no uniqueness in these ideas or expression and in the words of the judgements of this Court, almost

every author of a fiction would conjure them as consequential concomitant effects, as a matter of common grasp and “Scenes a Faire” which carry no copyright.

* * * * * *

“51. Therefore, to my mind, the dissimilarities between the script and the film outweigh the alleged similarities and the similarities by themselves are not sufficient to raise a presumption of copyright infringement at this stage in favour of the Plaintiff. In R.G. Anand (supra), the Supreme Court has held that idea, principle, themes or historical or legendary facts being common property cannot be the subject matter of copyright of a particular person. It is always open to any person to choose an idea as a subject and develop it in his own way giving an expression to the idea by treating it differently. Where two writers write on the same subject, similarities are bound to occur because the central idea of both is the same and therefore similarities or coincidences by themselves cannot lead to an inevitable conclusion of piracy or plagiarism. Therefore, the fundamental fact which has to be determined by the Court is to see whether the Defendant adopted only the idea of the copyrighted work or also the manner, arrangement, situation to situation, scene to scene with minor changes. … …

* * * * * *

“56. Therefore, tested on the anvil and touchstone of the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments, Plaintiff is required to prove substantial copying of its work i.e. show that the substance or kernel of Plaintiffs work is copied in order to succeed in his claim of copyright infringement. In the present case, by a comparison of the rival works, this Court is unable to reach a prima facie conclusion at this stage that Defendants have substantially copied the script o