Kiran Raj

The Bombay High Court has quashed the First Information Report (FIR) and all criminal proceedings against a Netherlands-based gaming company and one of its employees in a copyright infringement case. The court observed that the dispute was commercial in nature and had been amicably resolved between the parties. The FIR, registered for allegedly unauthorized broadcasting of copyrighted television content and sports events, was quashed following the submission of a settlement agreement between the complainant and the accused. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents allowing the quashing of criminal proceedings in matters where disputes are purely commercial and have been resolved between the parties.

The order states: “The FIR bearing C.R. No. 4 of 2023 culminating in proceedings bearing C.C. No. PW/3700427/2024 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Mumbai, are quashed and set aside.”

The case arose from a complaint filed by Viacom 18 Group, alleging that Play Ventures N.V., a foreign gaming company, and its employee unauthorizedly broadcasted copyrighted television shows, including Bigg Boss, Naagin, Choti Sardarni, and other content from Colors Channel, along with the Tata Indian Premier League (IPL) 2023, on various online platforms. The complainant asserted that the unauthorized broadcasts resulted in financial losses amounting to approximately Rs. 100 crores.

The FIR was registered under Sections 420, 120-B, 468, and 469 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 43, 66, and 66-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The complainant alleged that the gaming company had no valid license or permission to stream the copyrighted content and that the unauthorized broadcast caused substantial financial damage.

During the proceedings, it was submitted that the parties had reached a settlement, formalized through an agreement dated January 24, 2025. A consent affidavit was filed by an authorized representative of Viacom 18 Group, confirming that the company had no objection to quashing the FIR and the related criminal proceedings. The affidavit explicitly stated that Viacom 18 Group was the sole complainant in the matter and that there were no other victims involved. The parties further informed the court that the settlement was reached voluntarily and that they had resolved all disputes, eliminating the necessity for further litigation.

The High Court examined the settlement terms and noted that since the dispute was commercial in nature, allowing criminal proceedings to continue would serve no purpose. The court recorded: “Considering the nature of the dispute, which is purely commercial in nature, relations between the parties, Settlement Terms filed by the parties, and the Consent Affidavits of the Respondent No. 2, there is no impediment in allowing the petitions.”

The court referred to Supreme Court precedents set in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. and Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., which allow for quashing of criminal proceedings in cases where parties have amicably settled disputes of a non-serious nature. The court reiterated that in such cases, the primary consideration should be whether continuing the prosecution serves the interests of justice. It further noted that courts have the authority to quash proceedings when the prosecution stems from private disputes that do not affect public interest.

The court also recorded that both parties had voluntarily entered into the settlement, which was legally binding, and that the complainant had no further grievance against the petitioners. The judges further acknowledged that while offenses under the IPC were involved, the matter primarily revolved around commercial copyright infringement, which had been resolved to the satisfaction of the aggrieved party.

The High Court adjudicated in favor of the petitioners and quashed the FIR along with all related criminal proceedings. The court directed all parties to comply with the settlement agreement and specified that an authenticated copy of the order would be treated as sufficient for compliance purposes. The court concluded that no further legal proceedings were necessary as the complainant had explicitly stated that it had no remaining claims or demands against the petitioners.

The order concluded: “Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Petitions are disposed of accordingly. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.”

Case Title: Play Ventures N.V. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 821 & 822 of 2025

Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale

[Read/Download order]