[Scam 1992 Harshad Mehta series] Sony Pictures Network moves Bombay High Court after bank files criminal defamation, trademark infringement case

Owner of SonyLIV app, Sony Pictures Network India Pvt Ltd, has approached Bombay High Court seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered against it on a complaint by Karad Urban Co-operative Bank (KUCB) for offences of criminal defamation under the Indian Penal Code and violation of Trademarks Act and Information Technology Act. .The complaint filed by KUCB against unknown persons, alleged that in one of the episodes of the SonyLIV series 'Scam 1992, The Harshad Mehta story', a logo was displayed in the background which resembled the trademarked logo of KUCB causing serious damage to the "financial, commercial and social reputation" of the bank..On this complaint, the Pune Police registered an FIR for offences punishable under Section 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 102, 107 (falsely applying trademarks) of the Trademarks Act and Sections 66C and 43(b) of the Information Technology Act. .Sony stated in its petition that it was merely broadcasting a series which was owned and produced by Applause Entertainment Private Limited. The series was a cinematic adaptation of the book titled 'The scam: Who won, who lost, who got away'. It was contended that a disclaimer against all liabilities towards the aired content was published at the start of every episode of the series. .It was contended that the 'Bank of Karaj' used in the series was a pseudonym for 'Bank of Karad' and their alleged involvement in the scam was well-known, in the public domain, investigated and finally confirmed by the investigating agency. "There was no intention or conspiracy, as is being hinted at, to malign the name of the respondent bank, (KUCB)," the petition said..Bombay High Court quashes FIR against Newslaundry reporter in Trademark infringement case by Sakal Media Group.The urgency in approaching the High Court was that Pune police had issued notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure thus implying that Sony was an accused in the case. .Through the petition filed by Malgaonkar Shah & Co., Sony sought quashing of the FIR on the following grounds:That for a logo which allegedly appeared for a few seconds, the police proceeded to set the criminal law in motion including non-cognizable offences in it; The Bank has filed the complaint with an "ulterior motive of coercing the petitioner (Sony) with ostensible deep pockets into an undeserved settlement";That the FIR is so "absurd and baseless" that no prudent person would reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for continuing with investigation against Sony;That no FIR can be registered for the offence of defamation. ."There cannot be a more brazen case of misuse of criminal prosecution which if allowed even for a moment will entail criminal prosecution of the petitioner (Sony)," the plea stated. .Sony sought interim stay on the investigation into the FIR and a restraining order against the police from taking coercive steps against representatives and officials of Sony. .A Bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar orally directed the police not to take coercive action against the petitioners and listed the matter to consider the prayer for urgent relief on August 23, 2021.