HCs Can Look Beyond FIR/Complaint To Quash Frivolous Or Vexatious Criminal Proceedings : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, while quashing the copyright infringement case against 'Kahaani-2' film producer Sujoy Ghosh, observed that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing criminal proceedings, the High Court's must not confine their enquiry to the stage of the case and may consider the overall circumstances and materials on record to quash frivolous proceedings.

“The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, referencing Mohammad Wajid vs State of U P, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624.

The Court observed that while dealing with a petition for quashing FIRs/complaints registered out of frivolous or vexatious proceedings, “it will not be just enough for the (High) 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, and try to read in between the lines.”

In a nutshell, when an accused seeks quashing of the FIR/complaint arising out of frivolous proceedings, the High Courts may also consider surrounding circumstances, materials gathered during investigation, and events before and after filing of the complaint.

Applying the law, the judgment authored by Justice Alok Aradhe held that the High Court erred in failing to consider the surrounding circumstances and the prima facie material collected during the investigation. The Court noted that neither the complaint nor the witness statements identified any specific portion of the complainant's script allegedly copied by the appellant, and that the SWA Dispute Settlement Committee's report exonerating the appellant was not taken into account.

“…the statement of the complainant and witnesses namely, Ajay Kumar Mehta (brother of the complainant) and Jai Kishore Mehta, (cousin of the complainant), do not identify any feature of the script allegedly copied. It is pertinent to note that Dispute Settlement Committee of SWA comprising experts in its order dated 24.02.2018, found no similarity between the film and the script and dismissed the complaint. The aforesaid order was passed before recording the statements of the witnesses and before a summoning order was passed. However, the complainant and his witnesses concealed the aforesaid 9 material fact and did not bring the same to the notice of the Court.”, the court observed.

“…it is evident that the complaint only contains a bald and unsubstantiated allegations and do not even prima facie disclose the similarity between the film and the script.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Headnote

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Summoning of Accused – Copyright Infringement – Appeal against High Court order refusing to quash criminal proceedings for alleged copyright infringement of a film script - The Supreme Court observed that summoning an accused is a serious matter and should not be done as a matter of course - The Magistrate's order must reflect an application of mind to the facts and law, involving a careful scrutiny of the evidence to determine if an offence is prima facie made out - In the present case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) failed to record satisfaction regarding any specific similarities between the appellant's film 'Kahaani-2' and the complainant's script 'Sabak' - The summoning order was passed in a mechanical manner.

Frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings – Duty of Court – Held that when quashing is sought on grounds that proceedings are frivolous or malicious, the Court must examine the matter with "greater care" - The Court is not restricted to the averments in the complaint alone but must look into attending circumstances and "read in between the lines" - Noted that the appellant had registered the synopsis and scripts for the film between 2012 and 2013, well before the complainant allegedly met the appellant in June 2015 or registered his script in July 2015 - Since the appellant's work preceded the complainant's script, the question of infringement does not arise - the Screen Writers Association (SWA) Dispute Settlement Committee had already found no similarity between the works, a fact suppressed by the complainant - The proceedings were found to be manifestly frivolous and vexatious - The summoning order and the High Court's judgment are quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Mohd. Wajid & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2023) 20 SCC 219; Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749; Paras 13 20]

Cause Title: SUJOY GHOSH VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 271

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anu Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Shwetank Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Devangini Rai, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Dev Aaryan, Adv. Ms. Preety Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, AOR Mr. S N Kalra, Adv. Ms. Anjali Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Kamal, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Adv. Ms. Vrinda Taneja, Adv. Mr. Mayank, Adv.