Bombay High Court stays FIR against Flipkart in copyright case by Shemaroo

The Bombay High Court on Monday stayed a September 30 order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Andheri, which had directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Flipkart and others on a complaint by Shemaroo Entertainment alleging unauthorised use of its copyrighted content for promotional purposes. [Flipkart Internet Limited v. State of Maharashtra]

A Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad issued notice to the respondents and listed the matter for final disposal on November 24. The Court also ordered that no further proceedings shall continue pursuant to the magistrate’s directions until then.

"Till then, further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 30th September 2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate...shall remain stayed," the Bench said.

According to sources, it is Shemaroo's allegation that Flipkart used its copyrighted content on social media platforms for promotional purposes without permission, amounting to commercial exploitation without licence.

While the ACMM order does not specify which works were allegedly used, the complaint asserts that the posts were used to advertise Flipkart’s platform.

In its September 30 order, the ACMM held that the complaint disclosed cognisable and non-bailable offences under Sections 63 and 69 of the Copyright Act, read with Sections 318(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

It noted that the investigating officer at MIDC Police Station had declined to register an FIR, contending that the alleged use was protected as fair use under Section 52(a)(2) of the Copyright Act. The magistrate rejected that view, observing:

"The duty of the police officer is to register the FIR in relation to commission of a cognizable offence. He cannot adjudicate the matter and refuse to register the FIR on the basis of his own conclusion."

The ACMM also termed as “misplaced” the Senior Inspector’s conclusion that the matter amounted to a civil dispute, reiterating that copyright infringement is a cognisable and non-bailable offence.

Finding that the complaint warranted police investigation, the magistrate directed that the original complaint and documents be forwarded to the MIDC Police under Section 175(3) BNSS, requiring completion of investigation and submission of a report.

This prompted Flipkart to file a writ petition before Bombay High Court.

Flipkart was represented by Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam with Advocates Thomas George and Aamir Sopariwala, instructed by Saikrishna & Associates.

The State was represented by Advocate MM Deshmukh.

Shemaroo was represented by Advocates Aniket Nikam, Mahesh Mahadgut, Pradip Jaiswal and Kaivalya Shetye.

[Read Order]