Bombay High Court stays FIR against Flipkart in Shemaroo Copyright dispute

The Bombay High Court has stayed a September 30 order by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Andheri, which had directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Flipkart and others in connection with a copyright complaint filed by Shemaroo Entertainment, as per a report by Bar and Bench.

The order came from a Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, which also issued notice to the respondents and scheduled the matter for final disposal on November 24. The court further directed that no further proceedings would take place pursuant to the magistrate’s order until the case is heard. “Till then, further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 30th September 2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate… shall remain stayed,” the Bench stated.

Shemaroo’s complaint alleged that Flipkart had used its copyrighted content on social media platforms for promotional purposes without obtaining permission, amounting to unauthorised commercial exploitation. While the ACMM’s order did not specify which specific works were allegedly used, Shemaroo claimed that the content in question was used to advertise Flipkart’s platform.

In its 30 September ruling, the magistrate had found that the complaint disclosed cognisable and non-bailable offences under Sections 63 and 69 of the Copyright Act, read with Sections 318(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The order noted that the investigating officer at MIDC Police Station had declined to register an FIR, arguing that the alleged use fell under fair use provisions of Section 52(a)(2) of the Copyright Act. The magistrate, however, rejected this position, observing:

“The duty of the police officer is to register the FIR in relation to commission of a cognizable offence. He cannot adjudicate the matter and refuse to register the FIR on the basis of his own conclusion.”

The ACMM also criticised the Senior Inspector’s finding that the issue was a civil dispute, reiterating that copyright infringement constitutes a cognisable and non-bailable offence.

Concluding that the matter warranted a full police investigation, the magistrate directed that the original complaint and documents be forwarded to the MIDC Police under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, with instructions to complete the investigation and submit a report.

Flipkart subsequently challenged the magistrate’s order through a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The e-commerce company was represented by Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam, assisted by Advocates Thomas George and Aamir Sopariwala, instructed by Saikrishna & Associates. The State of Maharashtra was represented by Advocate M.M. Deshmukh, while Shemaroo was represented by Advocates Aniket Nikam, Mahesh Mahadgut, Pradip Jaiswal, and Kaivalya Shetye.