The Supreme Court has held that there were mere allegations of copyright infringement in Kahaani 2, Durga Rani Singh without proof of substantial similarity can’t justify criminal prosecution.
The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe has observed that the complaint lacked any specific assertion identifying similarities between the two works. The allegations were described as “bald and unsubstantiated,” with neither the complaint nor witness statements pointing to any particular scene, plot element, or expression that had been allegedly copied.
The case stemmed from a complaint alleging that the film Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh was based on a script authored by the complainant and shared with the accused prior to the film’s release. The complainant alleged offences under the Copyright Act, 1957, asserting that the film had copied substantial portions of his work.
A key aspect of the ruling was the reliance on findings by the Screen Writers Association’s expert body, which had earlier examined both works and concluded that there was no similarity between them. The Court noted that this material fact had been concealed during the criminal proceedings, raising serious doubts about the bona fides of the complaint.
The Court also underscored the importance of chronology in copyright disputes. It observed that the screenplay and concept of the film had been registered well before the complainant’s script came into existence, thereby negating the very foundation of the infringement claim.
Critically examining the actions of the Magistrate, the Court held that the summoning order was passed in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. It reiterated that summoning an accused is a serious matter and requires a careful evaluation of whether a prima facie case is made out based on material evidence.
The Court further observed that in cases where criminal proceedings appear frivolous or vexatious, courts must look beyond the complaint and examine surrounding circumstances to prevent abuse of process. It found that the present case was a clear instance of such misuse.
The Court set aside both the summoning order and the High Court’s refusal to quash the proceedings, bringing an end to the criminal case.
Case Details
Case Title: Sujoy Ghosh Versus The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.
Citation: JURISHOUR-454-SC-2026
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) NO. 9452 OF 2025
Date: March 20, 2026
Read More: Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue Post-Retirement; Pay Reduction Penalty Valid: Supreme Court
