Anshika Misra

A 60-second music clip, allegedly plagiarised by producer-director Rakesh Roshan in his forthcoming film Krazzy4, flexed its muscle on Wednesday to put a question mark on the April 11 worldwide release of the movie.

Bombay High Court,which is hearing music composer Ram Sampath’s suit alleging that Rakesh and his music composer brother Rajesh Roshan have “directly lifted” the music he had composed for a 60-second advertisement for four songs and the background score of Krazzy4, will decide the fate of the film on Thursday.

Sampath’s plea to the court that the film be released only after deleting “his music” could jeopardise the entire film as the controversial music features not only in the songs, but also the background score of the film.

The stakes are so high that even as Justice DG Karnik sat dictating the order on Wednesday evening after hearing both sides at length, Roshans’ lawyers rushed in and out of the courtroom in an attempt to settle the matter. Hushed whispers were exchanged and draft consent terms drawn up with a figure running into crores. However, Justice Karnik adjourned the matter to Thursday. It remains to be seen whether the parties would reach a compromise and file consent terms in court on Thursday.

Faced with a possible hurdle in the release of the film, rights of which have already been sold, the desperation of the Roshans was evident. Within hours of offering Rs2 lakh per month to Sampath as ad-interim relief, the offer was raised to Rs25 lakh and then “any amount that the court thinks appropriate”.

Pleading the court not to stay the release of the film on Friday, Roshans’ lawyer Arif Bookwala said, “My clients will be ruined internationally. The damage is unimaginable.”

He added that the rights of the film had already been sold, theatres booked and advance bookings on. “If the court grants an injunction,my client will not be able to comply with the order. The situation is out of our control now.” He also alleged that Sampath’s suit was an attempt to extort money.

Denying that the music had been plagiarised, Bookwala said that the court must seek expert’s opinion on the issue. However, Justice Karnik said that expert’s opinion could only assist the court and finally, what appeals to the judicial ear is all that matters.

Insisting on a stay, Sampath’s lawyer Virendra Tulzapurkar said that mere monetary compensation would not suffice. “The SMS-s sent by Hrithik establish that they knew the music was not created by them. They have done this knowingly and deliberately.”

He added that his client (Sampath) was a “small artiste” and needed to be protected when his work was plagiarised by such “big people”.

He also presented the opinion of Shiv Mathur, an independent expert, who confirmed Sampath’s allegation of plagiarism. Tulzapurkar added that the defendants were earning Rs7 crore per month simply from ringtone downloads and Rs2.5 crore per month from the sale of the music.