Bombay HC quashes FIR against Netherlands-based gaming firm in Viacom 18 copyright dispute | File Photo
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against a Netherlands-based gaming company accused of unauthorisedly broadcasting various popular shows of the Viacom 18 group, such as Bigg Boss, Naagin, Asur, and IPL 2023, on various regional Over-The-Top (OTT) platforms.
The court quashed the FIR after being informed that the parties—the company, Play Ventures NV, and one of its employees, Gulamabbas Muni, who is also the CEO of Sohail Khan Productions—had reached an amicable settlement with the Viacom 18 group.
The FIR was filed by Viacom 18, alleging that it had suffered a loss of ₹100 crore. It claimed that the Netherlands-based company had unauthorisedly broadcast certain programs, namely Asur, Crackdown (a web series), Bigg Boss (a reality show), Naagin, Choti Sardarni, and other series from Colors Channel, in regional languages on various OTT platforms. These programs were part of Viacom 18’s paid content. Additionally, the judges noted that the petitioners had also unauthorisedly broadcast the Tata IPL 2023 series.
A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela Gokhale, on February 12, observed: “It is alleged that due to this unauthorised broadcasting of TV shows and the IPL series, the First Informant (Viacom 18) suffered a loss of about ₹100 crore. According to the First Informant, the petitioners had no valid license or permission to broadcast the said content.”
Viacom 18 had lodged a complaint with the Nodal Cyber Police Station in Mumbai, leading to an FIR being registered on April 20, 2023, under Sections 420 (cheating), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 469 (forgery for harming reputation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with relevant provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, and the Copyright Act, 1957.
The police have filed their final report before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court.
Meanwhile, the court noted that the parties had amicably settled their dispute. “The Settlement Agreement comprehensively records the mutual understanding between the parties to avoid prolonged disputes and litigation. It is stated that the continuation of proceedings before the trial court will serve no purpose,” the judges said while quashing the FIR.
