Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Film Director in Copyright Infringement Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence and Non-Application of Mind by Magistrate. The Court Found Proceedings Were Manifestly Frivolous as Appellant's Film Script Was Registered Years Before Complainant's Script and Expert Committee Had Already Determined No Similarity Between Works Under Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957.

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from criminal proceedings initiated against a film director for alleged copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957. The appellant, a National Award-winning film director, had created and registered scripts for his film 'Kahaani-2' in 2012-2013. The complainant alleged that the appellant's 2016 film infringed his script 'Sabak', which was registered in July 2015. The complainant first approached the Screen Writers Association's Dispute Settlement Committee, which in February 2018 found no similarity between the works and dismissed the complaint. Despite this, the complainant filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, alleging offences under Sections 63, 65, 65A of the Copyright Act and Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate issued summons in June 2018 based on witness statements, finding a prima facie case under Section 63 of the Copyright Act. The appellant's petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash proceedings was dismissed by the High Court in April 2025, leading to this appeal. The core legal issue was whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed as manifestly frivolous and vexatious. The appellant contended that the summoning order disclosed non-application of mind, as there was no material showing similarity between the works, the complainant suppressed the expert committee's finding of no similarity, and the appellant's work preceded the complainant's script. The respondent argued that at the summoning stage, the Magistrate only needed to ascertain whether a prima facie case existed, not evaluate evidence in detail. The Supreme Court analyzed the principles governing summoning and quashing of criminal proceedings, emphasizing that summoning requires application of mind and careful scrutiny of evidence. The Court examined the complaint and found it contained only bald, unsubstantiated allegations without identifying any specific similarities. The witness statements likewise failed to identify any copied features. Crucially, the expert committee had already found no similarity, and this material fact was concealed from the Magistrate. The Court also noted the chronological sequence: the appellant had registered his screenplay in 2012-2013, while the complainant's script was registered in July 2015, making copyright infringement impossible as the complainant's work did not exist when the appellant created his. The Court concluded the proceedings were manifestly frivolous and vexatious, the summoning order was passed mechanically without application of mind, and the High Court erred in not appreciating this. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the summoning order, the High Court's order, and the entire criminal proceedings.

Headnote

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Summoning order dated 07.06.2018 passed by CJM and order dated 22.04.2025 passed by High Court quashed and set aside. Proceeding in Complaint Case No.1267 of 2017 pending before CJM, Hazaribagh quashed and set aside.