The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the criminal case filed against National Award-winning scriptwriter and director Sujoy Ghosh under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, over allegations that his film “Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh” used a stolen script.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. Sujoy Ghosh had filed the Special Leave Petition to challenge the Jharkhand High Court’s order refusing to quash the case.
Complaint Alleged Infringement of Script “Sabak”
Umesh Prasad Mehta filed the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. He alleged that the script of “Kahaani 2”, a Vidya Balan-starrer released as a sequel to the successful film “Kahaani”, infringed the copyright in his script titled “Sabak”.
Mehta claimed that he handed over the script of “Sabak” to Ghosh in June 2015 so that he could obtain a recommendation letter to register it with a film producer organisation. He further alleged that Ghosh used that script to make “Kahaani 2”, which released in December 2016. On that basis, he accused Ghosh of committing an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act.
Ghosh Denied the Allegations
Ghosh denied the allegations and maintained that he began writing the script of “Kahaani 2” in November 2012. He also stated that he registered the final draft with the Screen Writers Association in December 2013. He further denied ever meeting the complainant or receiving the script of “Sabak” from him.
Ghosh first approached the Jharkhand High Court under Section 482 CrPC and sought quashing of the proceedings. However, the High Court refused to interfere and said that the trial court could examine the merits of the rival claims during trial.
Supreme Court Examined the Summoning Order
Before the Supreme Court, Ghosh argued that the Magistrate had issued summons mechanically. He contended that the Magistrate did not even undertake a prima facie examination, much less compare the two scripts, to determine whether any similarity existed.
He also argued that the complaint did not place the script of “Kahaani” on record. Even so, the Magistrate issued summons without any such scrutiny, he submitted.
Petition Called Complaint a Tool of Harassment
In his petition, Ghosh argued that the impugned order created a dangerous precedent because it allowed criminal process to begin against an honest filmmaker solely on the basis of self-serving allegations, without disclosing any real case of copyright infringement.
“The Impugned Order sets a dangerous precedent where criminal process against an honest film-maker can be initiated on the basis of self-serving allegations without making out any case of copyright infringement. This is contrary to the established legal principles regarding issuance of process under Section 200-204 of the CrPC,” the petition stated.
Ghosh also described the complaint as a tool of harassment. He argued that the allegation of copyright infringement had no basis because the script of “Kahaani 2” had been registered two years before the registration of “Sabak”.
He further challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Hazaribagh court. According to him, the complaint could not proceed there because the alleged offence had taken place entirely in Mumbai.
Ghosh also argued that the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly when it refused to quash what he described as a “frivolous complaint containing patently absurd and inherently improbable allegations.”
Counsel
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, assisted by Advocate-on-Record Anu Shrivastava, appeared for the petitioner.
Case: Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand | SLP(Crl) No. 9452/2025
Also Read: MACT Compensation appellate Interference: SC Ruling.
