Summary
In the case of Prashant Kishor v. State of Bihar, the Patna High Court quashed an FIR that alleged theft and misuse of political campaign material, data, concept notes, workflow, algorithms and campaign designs. The court held that the allegations did not make out offences of forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust or conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, and that the mere use of the phrase "intellectual property" could not convert a civil or copyright related grievance into a criminal prosecution. The court also relied on copyright principles to say that ideas, themes, subject matter, concepts and campaign titles are not protected unless the law protects the expression in a legally recognised form.
Background
Political Campaign, Copyright and Criminal Prosecution Dispute The informant claimed that he had conceived a data driven political campaign called “Bihar Ki Baat” for the Bihar Legislative Assembly elections.
According to him, the campaign included socio economic data, concept notes, campaign designs, workflow, algorithms and other intellectual material. He had also registered the domain name www.biharkibaat.in in January 2020.
The allegation was that one person associated with the informant stopped coming to the office, took away the office laptop containing the campaign material, and later the petitioner launched a similar campaign called “Baat Bihar Ki” through the domain www.baatbiharki.in. The informant alleged that the laptop and material were taken at the instance of the petitioner and that the petitioner used his intellectual property without consent.
An FIR was registered for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, contending that the allegations were civil in nature, that no offence under the IPC was made out, and that the alleged material did not qualify as protected intellectual property in the manner claimed.
Questions Before the Court
- Whether the allegations in the FIR made out offences of forgery and use of forged documents under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Whether the allegations disclosed cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Whether alleged misuse of campaign data, concept notes, workflow, algorithms and campaign design could sustain a criminal prosecution.
- Whether an intellectual property dispute, without the necessary ingredients of a criminal offence, could be pursued through an FIR.
- Whether ideas, themes, campaign concepts, domain names or titles could by themselves receive copyright protection.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner argued that the FIR was filed to malign him before the Bihar Assembly elections and that the dispute was civil in nature.
- It was submitted that the allegation related to data, campaign designs and intellectual material, but there was no allegation that the petitioner created any false document or forged any document.
- The petitioner argued that publicly available Government data could not become exclusive intellectual property merely because it was used in a political campaign.
- It was submitted that similar domain names were not trademarks and could not create exclusive rights in the absence of registration or long standing use.
- The petitioner contended that the informant had already filed a civil suit on the same subject matter and had wrongly given criminal colour to a civil dispute.
State and Informant
- The State argued that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the investigation was still pending.
- The informant argued that he had created an original political campaign through skill, analysis and critical thinking, and that the final output constituted his intellectual property.
- It was submitted that the petitioner was the primary conspirator and that the material was stolen and used for the petitioner’s campaign.
- The informant also argued that offences under the Copyright Act are cognizable and that the police had the power to investigate.
- The informant contended that the criminal case should not be quashed merely because civil proceedings were also pending.
Court’s Analysis of IP Claims and Criminal Offences
The court first considered the allegations relating to forgery. It said that offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code rest on the existence of forgery, and forgery in turn requires the making of a false document within the meaning of Section 464. The court noted that the FIR did not allege that the petitioner made, signed, sealed, executed or altered any document. The allegation was about alleged use of data, designs and campaign material. Therefore, the basic legal requirement for forgery was missing.
The court then dealt with cheating. It stated that Section 420 requires deception at inception, dishonest inducement, and delivery of property as a result of such inducement. According to the court, the FIR did not state that the petitioner made any representation to the informant, false or otherwise. It also did not state that the informant delivered any property to the petitioner because of deception. At the highest, the allegation was that the petitioner later used material said to have originated with the informant. That, in the court’s view, did not satisfy the ingredients of cheating.
The court also considered conspiracy. It observed that once the substantive offences were not made out, the allegation of conspiracy could not stand on its own in the facts of the case. The prosecution could not continue merely by attaching Section 120B to allegations that did not disclose the underlying criminal offences.
On the intellectual property aspect, the court relied on settled copyright law. It referred to the principle that copyright does not protect ideas, themes, subject matter or concepts. It protects expression. The court also noted that titles by themselves do not generally attract copyright protection. Therefore, campaign concepts, titles, workflows or broad ideas could not be protected merely because they were described as intellectual property.
The decision also addressed the informant’s argument that he had created a protectable output by compiling and analysing public data. The court did not accept that, on the allegations in the FIR, the material was shown to fall within a protected category in a manner that could justify criminal prosecution. It stated that the informant could not use the phrase “intellectual property” as an incantation to invoke criminal law.
The court also noted that the informant had already filed a civil action on the same subject matter. In the court’s view, the continuation of criminal prosecution in these circumstances amounted to an abuse of process.
Findings
The findings of the Court are as follows:
- The FIR did not disclose any offence under Sections 467, 468 or 471 of the Indian Penal Code because there was no allegation that the petitioner made or used any false document.
- The ingredients of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code were absent because there was no allegation of deception, dishonest inducement or delivery of property by the informant to the petitioner.
- The allegation of conspiracy under Section 120B could not survive when the substantive offences were not made out.
- The alleged campaign concept, design, workflow, algorithms and data were not shown in the FIR to be protected intellectual property in a manner that could sustain criminal prosecution.
- Ideas, subject matter, themes and campaign titles could not be protected under copyright law by themselves.
- The informant had already chosen a civil remedy, and the criminal proceedings could not be used to give criminal colour to a dispute that did not disclose criminal offences.
- The FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed as against the petitioner.
Relevant Paras
Paragraph 41
“The offences under sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code takes life from section 463, which defines forgery, and from section 464, which defines a false document… Tested against this settled position, the present F.I.R. discloses no offence under sections 467, 468 or 471 of the Code, since there is not even a whisper of allegation that the petitioner made, signed, sealed or executed any document whatsoever, much less a document that could be characterised as a false document within the meaning of section 464 IPC.”
Paragraph 45
“On perusal of the F.I.R., none of essential ingredients are made out against this petitioner. The F.I.R. does not contain any allegation that there ever existed a transaction inter se the informant and the petitioner.
The informant further does not allege that the petitioner made any representation, false or otherwise, to the informant as a consequence of which the informant parted with any property or valuable security in consequence of any such representation.”
Paragraph 50
“At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.G. Anand v. Delux Films & Ors., reported as (1978) 4 SCC 118 wherein it has authoritatively been held that no copyright subsists in an idea, principle, theme or subject-matter…”
Paragraph 52
“Further again, from reading of the F.I.R., it appears that the data asserted by the informant does not fall in any of the categories of protected intellectual property much less under the Copyright Act. The informant has not stated that the subject concept note developed by the informant was registered and therefore, its unauthorized usage would attract penal provisions.”
Paragraph 53
“It is already crystallised that there can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter or themes. The informant can not use the phrase ‘intellectual property’ as an incantation to invoke the rigours of criminal law.”
Paragraph 55
“In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal prosecution against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and accordingly, this petition is allowed and the F.I.R. vide Patliputra P.S. Case No.94 of 2020 and all consequential proceeding arising therefrom are quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.”
Case Citation
Prashant Kishor v. State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar and Others, Patna High Court, Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 271 of 2020, decided on 12 May 2026, available on Indian Kanoon, visited on 26 May 2026.
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment.
Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog based on user inputs and prompts.