Sujoy Ghosh vs The State Of Jharkhand

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) NO. 9452 OF 2025)

SUJOY GHOSH ... APPELLANT VERSUS

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. … RESPONDENTS

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by KAPIL TANDON Date: 2026.03.20 16:27:40 IST Reason: 1 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 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

3 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 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, 4 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 Court1.

11. 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

Court2.

12. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions

and have traversed the record.

1 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. 2 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. 5

13. 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 accused3.

14. 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

3 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. 6 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 investigation4.

15. 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:

4

Mohd. Wajid & Anr. (supra)

7 “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.

10. 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.

16. 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

8 material fact and did not bring the same to the notice of the

Court.

17. 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.

18. 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 9 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.

19. For the reasons stated above, the inevitable conclusion is that

the proceedings instituted against the appellant are manifestly

frivolous and vexatious.

20. 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.

21. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

…..…….……………….………….……….J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

…..…….……………….………….……….J. [ALOK ARADHE]

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 20, 2026.

10