SUJOY GHOSH vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Supreme Court judgment (copyright summons)

SUJOY GHOSH vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Supreme Court judgment (copyright summons)

Meta: SUJOY GHOSH vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND — Supreme Court judgment on alleged copyright infringement and validity of summoning order. Appeal allowed; proceedings quashed.

INTRODUCTION

SUJOY GHOSH vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND: Supreme Court judgment addresses a criminal prosecution for alleged copyright infringement and whether the magistrate's summoning order was passed without application of mind. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the summoning order dated 07.06.2018 and the High Court order dated 22.04.2025, and set aside the related complaint proceedings.

QUICK FACT BOX

Case name: SUJOY GHOSH vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: 2026 INSC 267

Date of judgment: March 20, 2026

Judges: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA and ALOK ARADHE

Petition/Relief: Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Key legal provisions mentioned: Section 482 CrPC; Sections 63, 65, 65A of the Copyright Act, 1957; Section 387 IPC

Lower court outcome: High Court of Jharkhand dismissed Section 482 petition by order dated 22.04.2025

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Parties involved: Appellant SUJOY GHOSH; respondents THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

Events leading to litigation (chronological):

Appellant directed the film titled 'Kahaani' (released 09.03.2012) and registered parts of a later script for 'Kahaani-2' with SWA on 10.10.2013.

Complainant alleges he met the appellant on 29.06.2015 and left his script 'Sabak'; he registered 'Sabak' with SWA on 31.07.2015.

The film 'Kahaani-2' was released on 02.12.2016.

Complainant filed a complaint before SWA on 23.12.2016 alleging infringement; SWA Dispute Settlement Committee, by order dated 24.02.2018, found no similarity and dismissed the complaint.

Complainant filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Hazaribagh, alleging offences under Sections 63, 65, 65A of the Copyright Act and Section 387 IPC.

CJM, by summoning order dated 07.06.2018, held there was sufficient material to proceed and issued summons to the appellant and co-accused.

Appellant filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing; High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the petition on 22.04.2025.

This appeal followed in the Supreme Court.

LEGAL ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

The main question before the Court was: whether the summoning order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the CJM and the High Court order dated 22.04.2025 dismissing the Section 482 petition should be quashed on the ground that the summoning order disclosed non-application of mind and the proceedings were manifestly frivolous and vexatious.

SUPREME COURT ANALYSIS

The Court recalled principles governing summoning of an accused and parameters for quashing criminal proceedings, noting summoning is a serious step and must reflect application of mind.

The Court stated a Magistrate must carefully scrutinise the evidence on record and may put questions to complainant and witnesses to assess truthfulness and whether an offence is prima facie made out.

The Court observed that when criminal proceedings are alleged to be manifestly frivolous, vexatious or malicious, courts must examine the matter with greater care and may consider overall circumstances beyond the averments in the complaint.

The Court examined the complaint and noted paragraphs 9 and 10, which contained bald allegations that the film was made on the complainant's script; the Court found these were unsubstantiated and did not prima facie disclose similarity.

The Court recorded that statements of the complainant and his witnesses did not identify any feature of the script that was allegedly copied.

The Court noted the SWA Dispute Settlement Committee's order dated 24.02.2018, passed before witness statements and the summoning order, found no similarity between the film and the script; the complainant and his witnesses did not disclose this order to the CJM.

The Court found no material on record to prima facie conclude similarity between the appellant's film and the complainant's script; the CJM failed to record any satisfaction of similarity and the summoning order was passed mechanically without application of mind.

The Court observed that appellant's registrations for the relevant works predated the complainant's registration, noting the appellant's synopsis and partial and full scripts were registered in 2012 and 2013, while the complainant registered his script on 31.07.2015.

On these findings, the Court concluded the proceedings were manifestly frivolous and vexatious.

FINAL VERDICT

The summoning order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, is quashed and set aside.

The High Court order dated 22.04.2025 dismissing the Section 482 petition is quashed and set aside.

Complaint Case No. 1267 of 2017 pending before the CJM, Hazaribagh, is quashed and set aside.

The appeal is allowed.

WHY THIS JUDGMENT MATTERS

The judgment explicitly reiterates legal principles on the role of the Magistrate at the summoning stage, the need for application of mind, and the duty of courts to examine frivolous or vexatious proceedings with greater care.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in SUJOY GHOSH vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, holding the summoning order was passed without application of mind and that the criminal proceedings were manifestly frivolous and vexatious. The summoning order, the High Court order, and Complaint Case No.1267 of 2017 were quashed and set aside.