Supreme Court grants relief to director Sujoy Ghosh in copyright case over Kahaani 2 movie

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea filed by filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him for alleged copyright infringement over his 2016 film Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh [Sujoy Ghosh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.].

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan directed that no coercive steps be taken against Ghosh and also exempted him from personal appearance before the Magistrate during the pendency of the proceedings.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Ghosh against a Jharkhand High Court order that refused to quash the criminal case registered against him under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which penalises infringement of copyright.

The criminal complaint was filed by one Umesh Prasad Mehta, who alleged that the script of Kahaani 2 was copied from his own work titled Sabak. He claimed to have handed over the script to Ghosh in June 2015 to obtain a recommendation letter required for registration, and alleged that the material was later used without consent in the Vidya Balan–starrer movie which was released in December 2016.

According to the complainant, the film was a reproduction of his work and amounted to theft of his creative content. Based on his complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Hazaribagh recorded statements and issued summons to Ghosh on June 7, 2018, after finding a prima facie case of copyright infringement.

Ghosh approached the Jharkhand High Court seeking to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He argued that the complaint was false and that he had neither met the complainant nor received any script from him.

He contended that he began working on Kahaani 2 in 2012 and had registered the final script with the Screen Writers Association by December 2013, well before the alleged script exchange in 2015.

The High Court, however, dismissed the plea on April 22, 2025, observing that it would not conduct a “mini-trial” at the quashing stage and that the issues raised could be tested during trial. The Court said it was not for it to evaluate the merits or compare the two scripts at this stage.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for Ghosh, reiterated that the Magistrate had passed the summoning order without comparing the scripts or conducting any application of mind. He argued that the complaint failed to disclose even a prima facie case and that no material was placed to support the charge.

He also questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the Hazaribagh court, pointing out that the entire production process took place in Mumbai and that the complaint could not be maintained in Jharkhand.

Following the Court's notice, the matter will now proceed once the respondents file their counter affidavit.