National Award-Winning Director's Script Was Registered Two Years Before Complainant Even Wrote His — Supreme Court Quashes Copyright Infringement Case Against 'Kahaani-2' Director

"Summoning Order Passed in Mechanical Manner Suffers From Vice of Non-Application of Mind — Complainant Concealed Expert Panel's Finding of No Similarity", Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal proceedings for alleged copyright infringement initiated against Sujoy Ghosh, the National Award-winning director of 'Kahaani-2', holding that the summoning order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh suffered from manifest non-application of mind, that the complaint contained only bald and unsubstantiated allegations without identifying a single feature allegedly copied, and that the complainant and his witnesses had deliberately suppressed a crucial finding by an expert panel of the Screen Writers Association that had found no similarity whatsoever between the rival works.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, deciding the appeal on March 20, 2026, delivered the judgment authored by Justice Aradhe and additionally found that the appellant's screenplay had been registered two full years before the complainant even wrote his script — making the question of infringement legally impossible to sustain.

The court examined the standard of application of mind required before a summoning order is passed; the scope of quashing jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC in manifestly frivolous proceedings; whether bald and unsubstantiated allegations in a copyright infringement complaint without identifying a single copied feature can sustain criminal proceedings; and the effect of deliberate suppression of an expert finding by the complainant.

Summoning Order Is Not a Formality — It Must Reflect Application of Mind

The court restated the governing principles with emphasis. "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." A summoning order is not merely a threshold ministerial act — it must reflect the Magistrate's genuine application of mind to the facts and the law. "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."

In the present case, the court found the CJM's order manifestly deficient on this standard. Crucially, "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."

Complaint Contained Only Bald Allegations — No Feature of Alleged Copying Identified

Examining the complaint directly, the court noted that the only averments on copyright infringement were contained in paragraphs 9 and 10, which stated that the complainant saw the film and "was surprised because the said film was made on the script written by the complainant, and most scenes were based on complainant's script" and that "the accused had stolen his script." The court was pointed in its assessment: "It is evident that the complaint only contains bald and unsubstantiated allegations and does not even prima facie disclose the similarity between the film and the script." Compounding this, the statements of the complainant's witnesses — his brother and cousin — equally "do not identify any feature of the script allegedly copied." No scene, no character, no plot element, no dialogue — nothing was identified as being common between the two works.

Expert Panel's Finding of No Similarity Deliberately Concealed

The court's strongest observations were directed at the suppression of the SWA Dispute Settlement Committee's finding. This committee of experts had, on February 24, 2018, found no similarity between the film and the script and dismissed the complaint. Significantly, this order was passed before the statements of the witnesses were recorded before the CJM and before the 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." The court treated this deliberate suppression of an expert finding as a critical circumstance reflecting the vexatious nature of the proceedings.

Section 482 Quashing — Courts Must Read Between the Lines in Frivolous Cases

The court laid down an important principle on the scope of the quashing jurisdiction in frivolous proceedings. Where an accused seeks quashing on the ground of manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or malicious proceedings, "the Court is duty bound to examine the matter with greater care." It is not sufficient to look only at the averments in the complaint. "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 is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to initiation of the case as well as materials collected during investigation. On this basis, the court found the High Court had erred in failing to appreciate the non-application of mind in the summoning order and in not looking at the suppressed SWA finding.

Appellant's Script Registered Before Complainant's Script Even Existed

The court also identified a factual impossibility at the heart of the complaint. The appellant had registered the synopsis of the film in December 2012, the partial script in October 2013, and the full screenplay in December 2013. The complainant admittedly met the appellant only on June 29, 2015 and registered his script on July 31, 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." A film director cannot be accused of copying a script that had not yet been written when he registered his own.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the summoning order dated June 7, 2018 passed by the CJM, Hazaribagh, set aside the Jharkhand High Court's order dated April 22, 2025, and quashed Complaint Case No. 1267 of 2017 in its entirety.

Date of Decision: March 20, 2026