Kahaani 2 Movie Copyright Infringement Case: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh

The Supreme Court, today, quashed the criminal case and summoning orders against Director and Filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh in relation to copyright infringement case on 2016 film, Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh.

The Bench was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by Director Sujoy Ghosh challenging the decision of the Jharkhand High Court, which dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him. The case involved allegations of copyright infringement related to his film Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh.

The Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe ordered, "The Summoning order passed by the CJM dated...and the High Court dated... are quashed and set aside. The Proceedings in the complaint case no....pending before CJM, Hazaribagh is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the Petition is allowed."

The issue began when Umesh Prasad Mehta filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. Mehta alleged that the script for the 2016 Vidya Balan starrer, Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh, was an unauthorized copy of his own work titled Sabak. According to the complainant, he had approached director Sujoy Ghosh in June 2015, handing over his script in hopes of receiving a recommendation letter to help him register the work with a professional film producers' organization. Mehta claimed that instead of assisting him, Ghosh used the material to produce the sequel to his 2012 hit, Kahaani.

The core of the dispute involves Mehta’s allegation that he handed over a photocopy of his script, Sabak, to Ghosh in 2015 to obtain a recommendation letter for copyright registration. Mehta claimed that Ghosh used this material to create Kahaani 2, leading the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Hazaribagh to find a prima facie case of copyright infringement under Section 63 of the Copyright Act. While Ghosh argued that the Magistrate issued a summons "mechanically" without comparing the two works, the High Court held that the Magistrate had fulfilled his duty by examining the complainant and witnesses under oath.

In response, Sujoy Ghosh moved the Jharkhand High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. He argued that the allegations were not only baseless but chronologically impossible. The filmmaker had invoked Section 482 of the CrPC, asking the court to exercise its inherent powers to stop what he termed a "frivolous" prosecution. However, the Court ruled that the High Court cannot act as a trial court and must refrain from stifling a legitimate legal process when the facts are still "incomplete and hazy."

In its judgment, the High Court emphasized that it is not permitted to conduct a "mini-trial" while hearing a quashing petition. The court clarified that its role is not to weigh the evidentiary value of the documents or to explore possible defences, such as Ghosh’s claim that he registered his script back in 2013. Instead, the court maintained that the truth of these conflicting claims—whether the script was stolen or independently created—must be tested during a formal trial where evidence can be properly produced and cross-examined.

The High Court ordered, "Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has knowingly infringed the copyright in a work of the complainant. The complainant wrote the script of a film, got the copyright of the same but in the process of making the copyright, in order to get the recommendation from the film producer organization of the petitioner, gave a copy of his script to the petitioner, and though the petitioner assured that the complainant that whenever the petitioner will make a film, on the script of the complainant, he will call the complainant but behind his back has produced a film by using the script of the complainant. The veracity of such statement, is certainly is to be tested at the time to trial but at the stage of issuing the process when accused has no right to take part, the limited role of Magistrate in putting questions to the complainant and the witnesses, has been discharged by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in this case, by putting questions to both the complainant while recording his statement under Solemn Affirmation as well as putting question to the Enquiry Witnesses."

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that there were specific allegations and sufficient material on record to proceed with the case. By dismissing the petition, the court upheld the Hazaribagh Magistrate's authority to summon the director.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court has set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and quashed the criminal case pending against Ghosh.

Cause Title: Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9452/2025]