The Patna High Court has allowed a petition filed by Jan Suraaj Party founder Prashant Kishor, quashing a six-year-old First Information Report (FIR) that accused him of intellectual property theft. Justice Sandeep Kumar ruled that criminal law cannot be invoked over copyright claims involving ideas and themes, especially when parallel civil proceedings are already underway.
Background of the Dispute
The criminal proceedings originated from an FIR lodged at the Pataliputra police station in Patna. The complaint was filed by Shashwat Gautam, a former associate who had worked with Kishor during his time as the founder of the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC). Gautam, who was previously with the Congress party and is currently associated with the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), alleged that Kishor had stolen his creative concepts.
According to the complaint, Kishor allegedly misappropriated Gautam’s ideas for “Baat Bihar Ki,” a political campaign launched by Kishor in 2020. Following the controversy and the subsequent registration of the FIR, the “Baat Bihar Ki” campaign was shelved.
A couple of years later, Kishor initiated a new state-wide campaign called “Jan Suraaj.” This campaign featured a state-wide “pada yatra” (foot march), which eventually culminated in the official formation of a political party.
The Parallel Civil Litigation
During the proceedings, the Patna High Court took note of the legal trajectory of the dispute. The court’s order, which spans more than 50 pages, highlighted that Gautam had already sought legal remedy through civil channels.
Specifically, Gautam had preferred a civil action by filing a title suit regarding the dispute, which remains pending before the concerned civil court.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
In its detailed judgment, the High Court analyzed the boundaries of intellectual property rights and the applicability of criminal law to such disputes.
Justice Sandeep Kumar observed that legal protections do not extend to abstract concepts, stating that there can be:
“no copyright in an idea, subject matter and themes”
The court strongly criticized the use of criminal machinery to settle what is fundamentally a civil or intellectual property dispute. Justice Kumar observed:
“the informant cannot use the phrase intellectual property as an incantation to invoke the rigours of criminal law”
The High Court concluded that attempting to prosecute Kishor criminally under these circumstances was an improper use of the legal process. The court noted:
“The informant cannot therefore be permitted to give criminal colours to the proceedings…this court is of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the court, and accordingly, this petition is allowed”
With these observations, the Patna High Court quashed the FIR and allowed Prashant Kishor’s petition.
