In a notable move, the Bombay High Court stayed a lower court’s order that had directed the registration of an FIR against Flipkart in connection with a copyright infringement complaint filed by Shemaroo Entertainment.

The Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad issued notices to the concerned parties and scheduled the case for final hearing on November 24.

The judges further made it clear that, “Till then, further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 30th September 2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate...shall remain stayed,” thereby pausing any further action under the earlier ruling.

Facts:

The dispute arose from a complaint by Shemaroo Entertainment, which alleged that Flipkart had unlawfully used portions of its copyrighted content for online marketing and promotional purposes without obtaining due permission. Shemaroo claimed that this amounted to commercial misuse of its intellectual property.

The magistrate’s order did not specify which copyrighted works were allegedly used, but Shemaroo maintained that the content in question was used to attract users to Flipkart’s platform through social media.

Earlier, on September 30, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) at Andheri found that the complaint revealed 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 magistrate noted that the investigating officer had refused to register an FIR, claiming that Flipkart’s actions were covered under Section 52(a)(2) of the Copyright Act, which relates to fair use. Rejecting this reasoning, the ACMM stated: “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 magistrate further described the police officer’s view—that the disagreement was a civil dispute—as “misplaced”, reiterating that copyright infringement is a criminal offence falling within the category of cognisable and non-bailable violations.

Relying on the materials produced, the ACMM had concluded that a police probe was necessary and directed that the original complaint and accompanying documents be forwarded to the MIDC Police Station under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, instructing officers to complete their inquiry and file a detailed report.

This prompted Flipkart to file a writ petition before Bombay High Court.

Appearance:

Advocates for petitioner: Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Thomas George

Case Details: Flipkart Internet Limited V. State of Maharashtra(Criminal Writ Petition No: 5649 pf 2025