‘Kahaani 2’ Copyright Row Ends: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Director Sujoy Ghosh

The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed Ghosh’s plea and set aside the criminal case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, along with Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Anu Shrivastava, appeared for Ghosh.

The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a Jharkhand High Court order which had refused to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The complaint was filed by Umesh Prasad Mehta, who alleged that the script of Kahaani 2, starring Vidya Balan, infringed the copyright of his script titled “Sabak.” He claimed that he had shared his script with Ghosh in June 2015 seeking a recommendation for registration, and that the film released in December 2016 was based on his work.

The complaint invoked Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, alleging criminal copyright infringement.

Ghosh, however, denied the allegations and maintained that he had begun writing the script of Kahaani 2 in November 2012 and had registered its final draft with the Screen Writers Association in December 2013, well before the complainant’s alleged submission.

Ghosh initially approached the Jharkhand High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the proceedings. However, the High Court declined to interfere, observing that the merits of the rival claims could only be adjudicated during trial.

Challenging this decision before the Supreme Court, Ghosh argued that the very initiation of criminal proceedings was legally unsustainable. He contended that the Magistrate had issued the summoning order in a mechanical manner without undertaking even a prima facie assessment of whether the essential ingredients of copyright infringement were made out.

It was specifically argued that there had been no comparison of the two scripts; Kahaani 2 and Sabak, to determine similarity, which is a foundational requirement in copyright infringement claims. Furthermore, the complainant had not even produced the script of Kahaani or Kahaani 2 before the Magistrate, yet process was issued.

The petition described the complaint as “self-serving” and contended that allowing such proceedings to continue would set a dangerous precedent, enabling criminal prosecution of filmmakers based on unsubstantiated allegations.

“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,” the plea stated, referring to the statutory requirements governing issuance of process under Sections 200–204 of the CrPC.

Another significant ground raised by Ghosh was that of territorial jurisdiction. It was argued that the alleged acts, even if assumed to be true, took place entirely in Mumbai, and therefore the complaint filed in Hazaribagh was not maintainable.