SUJOY GHOSH V. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 9452/2025:

DATE: 20.03.2026

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe

FACTS:

The appellant, a film director and screenwriter, directed the film Kahaani (2012), which was critically acclaimed and earned him the National Award for Best Screenplay in 2013. Subsequently, he created and registered the script for Kahaani-2: Durga Rani Singh with the Screen Writers Association (SWA) in October 2013. The complainant alleged that in June 2015, he met the appellant in Mumbai, sought a recommendation for registering his script titled Sabak, and shared a copy of the same. He later registered his script in July 2015. When Kahaani-2 was released in December 2016, the complainant claimed that the film was based on his script and amounted to copyright infringement.

The complainant initially approached the SWA, whose Dispute Settlement Committee, by order dated 24.02.2018, found no similarity between the two works and rejected the claim. Despite this, the complainant filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Hazaribagh, alleging offences under the Copyright Act, 1957. The CJM issued summons in June 2018, finding a prima facie case. The appellant sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, but the High Court dismissed the plea in April 2025, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

The primary issue before the Court was whether the criminal proceedings for copyright infringement against the appellant were sustainable in the absence of prima facie material showing similarity between the two works. Additionally, the Court examined whether the summoning order and the High Court’s refusal to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC were legally justified or amounted to an abuse of process of law.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the summoning order issued by the CJM as well as the High Court’s order, and set aside the entire criminal proceedings. It held that the complaint was frivolous, vexatious, and lacked any prima facie material to establish copyright infringement.

The Court emphasized that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and requires proper application of mind by the Magistrate. It found that the complaint contained only vague and bald allegations, without identifying any specific similarities between the appellant’s film and the complainant’s script. Neither the complaint nor the statements of the complainant’s witnesses pointed out any copied scenes, themes, or elements. The Court further noted that the SWA Dispute Settlement Committee, comprising experts had already concluded that there was no similarity between the two works. This crucial finding was suppressed by the complainant during the criminal proceedings, thereby undermining the credibility of the allegations. The Magistrate failed to consider these aspects and issued summons mechanically, without recording satisfaction regarding the existence of prima facie similarity.

The Court also relied on the chronological sequence of events, observing that the appellant had registered the script and developed the film much prior to the complainant’s alleged creation of Sabak. Since the appellant’s work predated the complainant’s script, the allegation of copying was inherently untenable. The Court reiterated that in cases alleging abuse of criminal process, courts must look beyond the complaint and consider surrounding circumstances. It held that the continuation of such proceedings would amount to misuse of the judicial process. Consequently, the Court concluded that the case was manifestly frivolous and vexatious, warranting exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings in order to prevent injustice.

ANALYSIS:

This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s consistent stance that criminal law cannot be invoked casually, particularly in intellectual property disputes where civil remedies are ordinarily more appropriate. The Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between mere allegations and legally sustainable claims by insisting on the presence of prima facie material before allowing criminal prosecution to proceed. By scrutinizing not just the complaint but also surrounding circumstances such as the expert findings of the SWA and the timeline of script creation, the Court signalled that mechanical issuance of summons undermines the integrity of criminal procedure. The ruling thus strengthens safeguards against misuse of criminal proceedings as a pressure tactic in commercial or creative disputes, especially in the film industry where allegations of idea theft are common.

Furthermore, the judgment highlights the importance of bona fides and full disclosure by complainants. The deliberate suppression of the SWA’s expert finding played a crucial role in the Court’s conclusion that the proceedings were vexatious. The Court’s reliance on the chronological precedence of the appellant’s work also underscores a fundamental principle of copyright law, that originality and prior creation are key determinants in infringement claims. By quashing the proceedings, the Court not only protected the appellant from unwarranted prosecution but also clarified the scope of judicial intervention under Section 482 CrPC, affirming that courts must actively prevent abuse of process where allegations are inherently implausible or unsupported by evidence.