S&A Law Chambers | Case Update Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. | 2026 INSC 267 | Supreme Court of India | March 20, 2026
Background
In a significant judgment delivered on 20 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal of acclaimed filmmaker and National Award-winning screenwriter Sujoy Ghosh, quashing all criminal proceedings initiated against him under the Copyright Act, 1957. The bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe delivered a judgment that reaffirms several important principles governing the exercise of criminal jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes.
Anu Shrivastava appeared as Advocate-on-Record before the Supreme Court for the Petitioner.
The Facts
Sujoy Ghosh is a widely recognised film director and screenwriter, best known for directing Kahaani (2012), for which he received the National Award for Best Screenplay in 2013. Kahaani-2: Durga Rani Singh was a sequel he subsequently developed, which was released on 02 December 2016.
The Petitioner's work on Kahaani-2 had a documented history predating the complainant's script by several years:
- 10 December 2012 — Synopsis registered with Screen Writers Association (SWA) under the title Kolkata
- 10 October 2013 — First half of the script registered as Durga Rani Singh
- 02 December 2013 — Full script registered as Karaar
Against this backdrop, the Respondent (Complainant in the criminal case) claimed that he had travelled to Mumbai on 29 June 2015 and met the Petitioner, allegedly leaving behind a copy of his script titled Sabak. He registered Sabak with the SWA on 31 July 2015 — nearly three years after the Petitioner had already begun registering his screenplay.
Following the release of Kahaani-2, the Respondent filed a complaint before the SWA on 23 December 2016 alleging copyright infringement. The dispute was referred to the SWA Dispute Settlement Committee — a body comprising experts in the field of screenwriting. Simultaneously, the Respondent also filed a criminal complaint alleging infringement of copyright being Complaint Case No. 1267 of 2017 (“Criminal Case”) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh (“CJM”). The CJM passed an order dated 07 June 2018 isusing summons to the Petitioner (“Summoning Order“).
Crucially, before the Summoning Order was passed, the expert panel of the SWA by an order dated 24 February 2018 found no similarity between the Petitioner’s film and the Respondent's purported script for Sabak, and dismissed the complaint. This fact was not disclosed by the Respondent/ Complainant before the CJM in the Criminal Case.
Evidence was given before the CJM even after the SWA Order of 24 February 2018 but the Respondent and his witnesses concealed the SWA order from the CJM. The CJM issued summons against the Petitioner, relying only on the statements of the Respondent’s brother and cousin — neither of whom identified any specific feature of the script allegedly copied. Thus, the Summoning Order, was passed by the CJM, mechanically holding that a prima faciecase under Section 63 of the Copyright Act was made out.
The Petitioner approached the High Court of Jharkhand under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking quashing of the Summoning Order and the entire Criminal Case against him. This was dismissed on 22 April 2025, with the High Court holding that the CJM was not required to conduct a mini-trial at the stage of summoning the accused, and as such, was not required to ascertain the similarities between the Petitioner’s film and the Respondent’s script at the said stage. This was a legally incorrect finding by the High Court since the ingredients of a complaint of criminal infringement of copyright would have necessarily required a discussion regarding similarities, and without any prima facie similarities, no offence of copyright infringement could be made.
The Petitioner then approached the Supreme Court.
The Judgment
Issue 1: Application of Mind in Summoning Orders
The Supreme Court reiterated that the summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a matter of gravity and that criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. Citing Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 and Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1534, the Court affirmed that:
“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 accused.”
On examining the summoning order, the Court found that the CJM had failed to record any satisfaction that there was similarity between the Petitioner’s film and the Respondent’s script. The allegations in the complaint — confined to two paragraphs asserting broadly that "most scenes" of Kahaani-2 were based on the Respondent’s script — were found to be bald and unsubstantiated. No specific scene, sequence, character, or plot element was identified. The witnesses examined likewise failed to identify any feature of the Respondent’s script that had allegedly been copied.
The Supreme Court held that the summoning order was passed in a mechanical manner and suffered from the vice of non-application of mind.
Issue 2: The Court's Duty in Frivolous Proceedings Under Section 482 CrPC
The Court emphasised that when proceedings are alleged to be manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or malicious, a court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution is not limited to examining the averments in the complaint alone. Drawing on Mohd. Wajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 20 SCC 219, the Court held:
“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 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, try to read in between the lines.”
In this case, the attending circumstances were damning. The SWA's expert panel had conclusively found no similarity between the rival works — and this finding had been obtained before the summoning order was passed. Yet the Respondent and his witnesses actively concealed this material fact from the CJM. The High Court, in the Supreme Court's assessment, failed to appreciate this critical aspect of the record.
Issue 3: Prior Registration as a Copyright Non-Starter
The Supreme Court gave considerable weight to the chronology of registrations. The Petitioner had registered various iterations of his screenplay with the SWA between December 2012 and December 2013. The Respondent’s script Sabak was registered only on 31 July 2015 — over two and a half years after the Petitioner’s full script had already been registered.
Since the Petitioner’s work clearly preceded the Respondent’s script in point of time, it was held that the question of copyright infringement did not arise as the Respondent’s script simply did not exist when the Petitioner registered his screenplay. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion was that the proceedings instituted against the Petitioner were manifestly frivolous and vexatious.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the proceedings instituted against the Petitioner were manifestly frivolous and vexatious. The Court quashed the Summoning Order dated 07 June 2018, the High Court's order dated 22 April 2025, and the entirety of the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1267 of 2017 pending before the CJM, Hazaribagh.
Key Takeaways
For practitioners in criminal copyright litigation, this judgment is significant on three fronts:
1. The threshold for summoning is not a rubber stamp
A Magistrate at the cognizance stage cannot simply count the number of witnesses and pass a summoning order. There must be a genuine, reasoned satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out — with specific reference to the facts. Bald and general allegations are insufficient. These principles which had been laid down succinctly in Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd., (2019) 16 SCC 610, have been reiterated by the Supreme Court.
2. Duty to look beyond the Complaint under Section 482
When there is evidence of frivolousness or suppression of material facts, the High Court — and the Supreme Court — will not hesitate to look beyond the complaint. The concealment of the SWA’s expert finding weighed heavily in favour of the Petitioner while passing the judgment. Due to this concealment, it became clear to the Supreme Court that the Criminal Case was frivolous and vexatious.
3. Objective of recording the complainant’s statement on oath under Section 200 of CrPC
While representing the Petitioner, we had relied upon a recent judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 641 which highlighted a complainant’s duty in a criminal case to disclose the whole truth in the following words:
“Recording the complainant's statement on oath under Section 200 of the CrPC is not an empty formality. The object of recording the complainant's statement and witnesses, if any, is to ascertain the truth. The learned Magistrate is duty-bound to put questions to the complainant to elicit the truth. The examination is necessary to enable the Court to satisfy itself whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.”
“It is settled law that a litigant who, while filing proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the court.”
This has traditionally been a principle under civil law, but has been rightly imported into criminal law to ensure that the Magistrate is able to apply his mind to the material before them and ascertain if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.
4. Registration timelines matter in copyright
Where a party's work demonstrably predates the complainant's creation, infringement is a logical and legal impossibility. Registration with bodies like the SWA provides critical documentary protection that courts will recognise.
More broadly, this judgment serves as a reminder that the criminal process carries significant consequences for those against whom it is invoked. It cannot be weaponised as a tool of harassment — particularly in creative industries where disputes over originality and similarity are common, and where expert assessment should carry considerable weight.
4. The general guidance for quashing criminal cases
We had also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. and Anr., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1947 which lays down the steps to be followed while quashing a criminal complaint by invoking Section 482. According to the said judgment,
“20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:—
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.”
All the above steps had been met by the Petitioner in the case under discussion which convinced the Supreme Court to quash the Criminal Case against the Petitioner. The judgment passed by the Supreme Court sets an important precedent and steps in to protect innocent persons from being summoned in a criminal court even though no criminal case lies against them.