Criminal copyright infringement claims are unsustainable if the accused’s work predates the complainant’s script.

The appellant, a film director, released the film ‘Kahaani’ in 2012. He registered the initial script for the sequel, ‘Kahaani-2: Durga Rani Singh,’ with the Screen Writers Association (SWA) on October 10, 2013

The complainant (Respondent No. 2) alleged that he met the appellant on June 29, 2015, and provided a copy of his script titled ‘Sabak,’ which he subsequently registered with the SWA on July 31, 2015

Following the release of ‘Kahaani-2’ on December 2, 2016, the complainant filed a dispute with the SWA alleging copyright infringement

While the SWA proceeding was pending, the complainant filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Hazaribagh, alleging offences under Sections 63, 65, and 65A of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 387 of the IPC

On February 24, 2018, the SWA Dispute Settlement Committee found no similarity between the works

However, on June 7, 2018, the CJM issued a summoning order for an offence under Section 63 of the Act

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the appellant's petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings on April 22, 2025

1. Whether the Magistrate exercised proper application of mind in issuing the summoning order despite the lack of specific evidence of similarity between the works

2. Whether the criminal proceedings were manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or malicious, warranting quashing under Section 482 of the Code

The Court applied the settled principle that summoning an accused is a serious matter requiring the Magistrate to reflect an application of mind to the facts and law, rather than acting as a matter of course (Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate)

It further relied on the doctrine that when a proceeding is alleged to be frivolous or malicious, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC must look beyond the averments in the complaint to the "attending circumstances" and overall record (Mohd. Wajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh)

The court also referenced Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, regarding the ingredients of infringement

The Court observed that the complaint contained only "bald and unsubstantiated allegations" and failed to identify specific portions of the script that were allegedly copied

Crucially, the complainant and witnesses suppressed the SWA expert committee's report, which had found no similarity between the film and the script prior to the CJM’s summoning order

The Court noted that the CJM issued the summons mechanically, failing to record any satisfaction regarding actual similarities

Furthermore, the Court conducted a chronological analysis, finding that the appellant had registered the synopsis and partial scripts for ‘Kahaani-2’ (under titles ‘Kolkata’ and ‘Durga Rani Singh’) in 2012 and 2013—well before the complainant registered ‘Sabak’ in 2015

Consequently, the Court reasoned that since the appellant’s work preceded the complainant’s script, no infringement could have occurred as the complainant’s work did not exist at the time of the appellant’s creation

It concluded that the summoning order suffered from a non-application of mind and the High Court erred in refusing to quash the proceedings

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the summoning order dated June 7, 2018, the High Court’s order dated April 22, 2025, and all proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1267 of 2017