Sujoy Ghosh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr

Alok Aradhe, J

Leave granted.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 SWA on comparison had  found no  similarity between  rival  works.  It is also  pointed  out  that  script  of  appellant’s  film‘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. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court [Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Ors., (2019) 16 SCC 610, Mohd. Wajid & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2023) 20 SCC 219, Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi  Mahila Nagari  Sahkari  Patsansta Ltd., (2025)  SCC Online  SC 641 and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. and Anr., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1947].

On the other hand, the learned counsel for 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. It is contended that at the stage of cognizance and issuance of process, the Magistrate is only required  to  ascertain whether a  prima  facie case  exists and  is not  expected  to  undertake  a  detailed  evaluation  of  evidence  or determine the veracity of the allegations. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders, do not call for any interference in this appeal. In support of the aforesaid submissions,  reliance  has  been  placed  on  the  decisions  of  this Court [State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 and Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 1032].

We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and have traversed the record.

The principles governing summoning of an accused in a criminal case as well as 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. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate must carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and determine whether any offence is prima facie made out. The Magistrate may even himself  put  questions  to  the  complainant  and  his  witnesses  to elicit  answers  to  find  out  the  truthfulness  of  the  allegations  or otherwise, and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused [Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors.; (1998) 5 SCC 749 and Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1534].

When  an  accused  seeks  quashing  of  either  the  FIR  or  criminal 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. It will not be just  enough  for  the  Court  to  look  into  the  averments  made  in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending  circumstances  emerging  from  the  record  of  the  case, over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and  circumspection,  and  try  to  read  in  between  the  lines.  The Court  while  exercising  its  jurisdiction  under  Section 482 of  the Code  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 [Mohd. Wajid & Anr. (supra)].

In the backdrop of the aforementioned legal principles, we may advert to the facts of the case in hand. We have carefully perused the complaint. The allegations with regard to copyright infringement are contained in Paras 9 and 10 of the complaint, which read as under:

“9. That the complainant saw a film produced by accused no.1 ‘Kahanni-2’ at Laxmi Chitramandir Hazaribagh on 03.12.2016 and  after seeing  the said film, the Complainant was surprised because the said film was made on the script written by the complainant, and most scenes were based on complainant’s script.

That after seeing the said film the complainant understood that the accused had  stolen  his  script  and  made  the  film  by violating copyright provisions.”

Thus,  it is  evident  that  the  complaint  only  contains a  bald  and unsubstantiated allegations and do not even prima facie disclose the similarity between the film and the script.

Likewise, the statement of the complainant and witnesses namely, Ajay Kumar Mehta (brother of the complainant) and Jai  Kishore  Mehta,  (cousin  of  the  complainant),  do  not  identify any feature of the script allegedly copied. It is pertinent to note that  Dispute  Settlement  Committee  of  SWA  comprising  experts in  its  order  dated  24.02.2018,  found  no  similarity  between  the film  and  the  script  and  dismissed  the  complaint.  The  aforesaid order was passed before recording the statements of the witnesses and before a summoning order was passed. However, the complainant and his witnesses concealed the aforesaid material fact and did not bring the same to the notice of the Court.

On the basis of aforesaid material on record, there is 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 has even failed to record the satisfaction  that there  is  any  similarity  between  the appellant’s film and the complainant’s script. The summoning order, therefore,  has  been  passed  in  mechanical  manner  and  suffers from  vice  of  non-application  of  mind.  The  High  Court  has  also failed to appreciate that the summoning order  has been passed without any application of mind and in the absence of sufficient material on record.

The  material  on  record  reveals that‘Kahaani-2’is  a sequel  to the earlier film of the appellant, namely ‘Kahaani’. The appellant registered the synopsis of the film on 10.12.2012 under the title ‘Kolkata’. The partial script of the said film, then  titled‘Durga  Rani  Singh’, was  registered  on  10.10.2013. The full script of the said film, then titled 'Karaar’, was registered  on  02.12.2013.  Admittedly,  the  complainant  went  to Mumbai on 29.06.2015 and registered his script on 31.07.2015. Thus, the appellant’s work clearly preceded the complainant’s script in point of time and 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  the  reasons  stated  above,  the  inevitable  conclusion  is  that the  proceedings  instituted  against  the  appellant  are  manifestly frivolous and vexatious.

In the result, the summoning order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the CJM, and order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the 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.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.