‘Scam 1992’ web series: HC stays probe for three weeks in FIR by bank against Sony Pictures

A division bench of Justice S S Shinde and Justice N J Jamadar stayed the probe pending the hearing of pleas by Sony Pictures and Sameer Nair, the CEO of the Applause Entertainment Pvt Limited which has produced the web series.

The bank, in its FIR against Sony Pictures Network India Pvt Ltd, the owner of the SonyLIV application, has alleged that in the third episode of the web series, a logo was displayed in the background which “resembles” its trademark, thereby causing serious damage to its “financial, commercial and social reputation”.

The FIR was registered in July this year at Sahakar Nagar Police station in Pune for offences punishable for defamation under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and provisions of the Trademarks Act, along with charges under Information Technology Act.

The petitioner network said that it was merely broadcasting a series that was owned and produced by Applause Entertainment and it was a cinematic adaptation of the book titled “The Scam: Who won, Who lost, Who got away”.

The plea said that a disclaimer against all liabilities towards the content was published at the beginning of every episode of the concerned series, which clearly stated that the series bears no resemblance to any actual person. “However, for ulterior motives, the complainant appears to have zeroed in with a laser beam on the fleeting display of a logo appearing on a calendar at the back of actors in a scene and registered the FIR…,” the petition read.

It added that the “Bank of Karaj” used in the series was a pseudonym for Bank of Karad and their alleged involvement in the scam was in the public domain and confirmed by the RBI. There was no intention or conspiracy, as is being hinted at, to malign the name of the respondent bank,” the petition said.

Senior Counsel Shirish Gupte for the Sony Pictures submitted that section 115 (4) of the Trademarks Act provides of an investigation by officer of a rank not less than deputy superintendent (DySP) of Police, however, in the present case it is investigated by the Police Inspector (PI) and same is apparent from notice issued by Police under CrPC.

Gupte further contended that offence registered under section 500 (defamation) under IPC is non-cognizable and cannot be investigated on the basis of FIR by Inspector without permission of the Magistrate.

Senior advocate Amit Desai for petitioner Nair submitted that the concerned web series does not come under the definition of ‘goods’ under the Trademarks Act and offences made under the said law are not made out. Additional Public Prosecutor J P Yagnik submitted that he will reflect over the submissions made by petitioners and also grounds taken in petitions and will take instructions from officials.

Advocate Shekhar Jagtap for the respondent Bank sought time to file an affidavit in reply to the pleas.

After hearing submissions, the bench asked the cops to take corrective steps. “How can you continue with the investigation till then? We are granting ad-interim relief and staying investigation,” the HC said.

The court stayed the probe for three weeks and noted, “We prima facie find force in submission of the petitioner that offence under 500 IPC cannot be investigated by Police. At this stage, it is not necessary to give elaborate reasons. Investigation cannot be continued further for legal impediment.”

The bench will hear the pleas next on September 17.