Calcutta High Court quashes summoning order against Microsoft in pirated software case [Read Judgment]

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has quashed a summoning order against Microsoft Global Services Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd. in a case involving the alleged sale of pirated Microsoft software, emphasizing the importance of proper judicial procedure before summoning accused persons residing outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Calcutta High Court Ruling on Microsoft: Key Takeaways from the Pirated Software Case

Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee delivered the judgment on February 21, 2025, addressing key procedural requirements under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Section 202 CrPC and Summoning Orders: How the Court’s Decision Impacts Future Cases

The court examined a complaint filed against eight accused persons, including Microsoft Global Services Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd. and one of its office bearers. The complainant alleged that he had purchased “Microsoft Office Home & Business 2019” through Amazon, only to later discover that the product key was not genuine.

Addressing the procedural lapses, the court observed, “I do not find from their statements to come to a conclusion that the mandatory inquiry has been conducted by the magistrate in respect of the present two petitioners, in compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

The court highlighted that the magistrate failed to conduct the necessary inquiry when the petition of complaint “does not mention any specific role of the petitioners herein in committing the offence and when the concept of vicarious liability may not have any application in the present context.”

Justice Mukherjee emphasized the importance of judicial scrutiny, stating, “The words used in Section 204, ‘sufficient ground for proceeding,’ are of immense importance, which clearly suggests that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the accused.”

In its ruling, the court directed, “The court below will pass a fresh order after complying with the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC in respect of the present two petitioners within two months from the date of receipt of the order.”

The court clarified that it was not suggesting the petitioners could not be prosecuted but emphasized that proper procedure must be followed, especially when the accused reside outside the magistrate’s jurisdiction.

Advocates Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Mr. Shounak Mitra, Mr. Zulfikar Ali Alquaderi, and Mr. Aditya Sarkar appeared for the petitioners, while Advocates Mr. Tapas Dutta and Ms. Matrayee Chatterjee represented the complainant.

Case Title: Microsoft Global Services Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

 [Read Judgment]