The Patna High Court quashed a criminal case against Prashant Kishor over allegations linked to the “Baat Bihar Ki” campaign, with Justice Sandeep Kumar holding that the accusations did not establish offences of forgery, cheating, or criminal conspiracy under the IPC.
The Patna High Court has quashed a criminal case filed against political strategist Prashant Kishor in connection with allegations that he used stolen data and campaign materials for his political initiative “Baat Bihar Ki”.
Delivering the decision, Justice Sandeep Kumar held that the allegations assuming they were taken at face value were not sufficient to establish offences of forgery, cheating, or criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The High Court emphasized a critical legal principle regarding “intellectual property” in political ideas and themes.
The Court said:
“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,”
The dispute traces back to an FIR registered in 2020 at Patliputra Police Station, Patna, filed on a complaint by Shashwat Gautam.
Gautam alleged that he had conceived a data-driven political campaign called “Bihar Ki Baat” ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections. According to the complaint, the campaign was built using socio-economic data related to Bihar and included items such as a concept note, campaign designs, workflow, algorithms, and other campaign-related material.
Gautam further stated that he had registered a website: “www.biharkibaat.in” on January 7, 2020.
As per the complaint, Gautam claimed that Osama Khurshid, who was associated with the campaign, stopped attending office in February 2020 and left with an office laptop containing the alleged campaign data and designs.
Gautam’s complaint then alleged that later, Kishor launched “Baat Bihar Ki” using what Gautam described as the same materials, and that Kishor also registered a website “http://www.baatbiharki.in” on February 16, 2020.
Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered against Kishor invoking provisions including:
- Sections 467, 468, 471 (forgery-related offences),
- Section 420 (cheating),
- Section 406 read with Section 120B (criminal breach of trust and conspiracy), all under the IPC.
Kishor approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.
He argued that the dispute was fundamentally civil in nature and was being given a criminal colour. His counsel submitted that there was no allegation that Kishor himself stole the laptop. At best, the prosecution story suggested that the material allegedly taken by Khurshid was later used by Kishor.
The High Court accepted this line of reasoning.
On the forgery-related allegations, the Court noted that offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC require the existence of a false document.
However, the Court observed that there was no allegation that Kishor had made, signed, sealed, or executed any false document. Therefore, the foundational element for forgery was missing.
The Court also rejected the cheating charge under Section 420 IPC.
It reasoned that cheating requires allegations that the accused made a representation, which could be false or otherwise, and that the complainant, believing that representation, parted with property as a result.
The Court found that such ingredients were not made out. It stated:
“At its highest, the petitioner is alleged only to have used, at a later stage, the data said to have originated with the informant,”
It held that this did not satisfy the ingredients of cheating.
The Court further held that once the main offences such as forgery and cheating were not established, the allegation of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC also could not continue.
A major part of the complainant’s argument was framed around “intellectual property theft.”
Also Read: Delhi Police Files Chargesheet Against NewsClick for Alleged “Pro-China Propaganda”
The High Court held that the materials referred to by the complainant such as the alleged campaign content and data did not fall within a category that would attract protection under the Copyright Act, at least as pleaded in the FIR and complaint.
The Court noted that the complainant did not show that elements like the concept note, campaign design, workflow, or algorithms were registered or protected in a manner that could trigger penal provisions.
The Court also observed that the alleged materials were stored on a laptop and were incorporeal in nature, and that the specific legal fiction required for “theft” was not made out on the facts of the case.
Further, the Court relied on the principle that:
- There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, or theme, and
- A derivative work drawing heavily from public sources such as census reports and economic surveys would not automatically qualify for the kind of protection asserted by the complainant.
The Court also recorded that Gautam had already filed a civil suit regarding the same subject matter.
In that context, the Court concluded that the complainant should not be allowed to convert a dispute likely suited for civil adjudication into a criminal prosecution.
The Court said:
“The informant can not therefore be permitted to give criminal colour to the proceedings,”
Concluding that continuing the criminal prosecution against Kishor would be unjust, the Court held that it would amount to an abuse of the process of court.
Accordingly, the FIR was quashed.
- For Kishor: Advocates Eashita Raj and Anuj Kumar
- For the State: Standing Counsel M Nasrul Huda Khan and Harun Quareshi
- For Gautam: Advocates Sangeet Deokuliar and Akhilesh Kumar
Case Title: Prashant Kishor vs State of Bihar.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE