BRB Legal

IP Case Digest · Code of Criminal Procedure s.482

Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure: case law

3 judgments of the Supreme Court of India, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) and 1 other court applying Code of Criminal Procedure s.482, from 2024–2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.

3judgments
3courts
2024–2026years

Sujoy Ghosh v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (Kahaani-2 Script Dispute), CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 267 OF 2026

Supreme Court of India · Allowed

Summoning order and the entire criminal proceeding quashed. The complaint alleging that the film Kahaani-2 copied the complainant's script contained bald and unsubstantiated allegations that did not even prima facie disclose any similarity, and neither the complainant nor his witnesses identified a single feature said to be copied. The Dispute Settlement Committee of the Screen Writers Association, comprising experts, had already found no similarity and dismissed the complaint, a material fact the complainant concealed from the court. The Magistrate's summoning order recorded no satisfaction as to similarity and was mechanical. Decisively, the appellant's synopsis and script were registered in 2012 and 2013 while the complainant's script was registered only in 2015, so the complainant's work did not exist when the appellant registered his screenplay and infringement could not arise. The proceedings were held manifestly frivolous and vexatious.

Mohd. Abdul Momin v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Application U/S 482 No. 3112 of 2013)

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) · Allowed

Criminal proceedings under sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act and sections 64 and 65 of the Copyright Act quashed under section 482 CrPC. The underlying commercial dispute over the KAVERI mehndi cone marks had been settled by a compromise decree in 2016, under which the applicant withdrew his trade mark applications and oppositions and undertook not to use any deceptively similar mark or packaging. Neither the complainant nor the proprietor of the firm appeared to oppose. Applying Gian Singh and Ramgopal, the Court held that the chance of ultimate conviction was extremely bleak and no useful purpose would be served by letting the prosecution continue.

Sri Manjunatha M.S. v. State by Arisikere Town Police & Anr. (Criminal Petition No. 1620 of 2017)

Karnataka High Court · Dismissed

Petition under section 482 CrPC to quash the prosecution dismissed. The proviso to section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, requiring a police officer to obtain the Registrar's opinion before search and seizure, is not mandatory; non-compliance is an irregularity which does not vitiate the investigation unless the accused establishes at trial that it occasioned a failure of justice. Where the complaint was registered under section 63 of the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act offences came to light only once the seizure was under way, the officer was under no obligation to obtain the opinion at that stage, since the articles could not reach the Registrar without first being seized. Whether the Copyright Act complaint was a device to bypass the proviso is itself a question for trial, on which the complaint could then be dismissed.

All 3 judgments on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Search the IP Case Digest