K’taka HC rejects IPS Officer D. Roopa’s plea to quash defamation complaint by IAS Officer
Bangalore: The Karnataka High Court has declined to quash the defamation complaint brought against IPS officer D Roopa by IAS Officer Rohini Sindhuri, who accused Roopa of disseminating defamatory content against her.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed Roopa's argument that the statements she made were in her official capacity and, therefore, the Magistrate erred in considering the private complaint for the offense under Section 499 of IPC without a sanction.
The court stated, "The Doctrine of state humanity covers all the acts performed by a public servant in exercise of function of the Government and not where acts are done by the public servant for her or his own benefit or pleasure and may be under the power of authority, such acts will not fall under the immunity principles."
It further elaborated, "The scope of operation of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty."
The case revolves around a private complaint filed by the IAS officer, who alleged that the IPS officer Roopa shared her photos on Facebook and intentionally posted defamatory comments and allegations on a private Facebook account. Sindhuri also claimed that Roopa made statements to the media questioning her character and conduct, both professionally and personally.
The IAS officer asserted that these posts, comments, and statements were false, malicious, and intended to harm her reputation and thereby filed the complaint under Section 500 of IPC, seeking Rs.1,00,00,000 as compensation.
Roopa's counsel argued that the complaint did not meet the essential elements of an offense under Section 499 IPC since her statements fell under exceptions 2, 3, and 9 of Section 499. It was further argued that the allegations against the petitioner were based on reports and publications already in the public domain and related to public questions, making them exempt from Section 499.
The respondent's counsel countered that there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. They argued that the case should go to trial, as whether the statements fall under the exceptions or were made in good faith is a matter for a full-fledged trial to determine.
The court examined the prima facie material presented by the complainant and found that this material demonstrated that the petitioner was to face a criminal trial. It notes that whether the posts and statements fall under exceptions or were made in good faith is a matter for trial, and the burden is on the accused to demonstrate this.
"If the statements posted on a private account as well as the statements made before the print media are examined, I am more than satisfied that petitioner/accused is bound to face a criminal trial. The question as to whether the posts made on a Facebook account and the statements made before the print media fall under exceptions is a matter of trial. In order to claim good faith, the accused must show that before making the alleged imputation, she has made an inquiry with due care and attention. In order to establish good faith and bonafides, it has to be seen that the circumstances under which imputations were made and published. It is only during a full-fledged trial, it can be ascertained as to whether imputations were made with any malice.”
The Court added, "The posts made on a private account of Facebook and also comments and allegations on her Facebook page as well as before the print media are motivated and deliberate besides being totally false and mischievous only to belittle the complainant in the eyes of the public at large and in particular before her superiors, colleagues, and subordinates."
Regarding the issue of sanction, the court found that the acts complained of by the complainant did not relate to the official duties of the petitioner as a public servant, and thus, the petitioner is not entitled to protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The court concluded that this was not a case where interference by the court was warranted.
“The posts and statements given to the print media prima facie not being part of her official duties, I am of the view that she is not entitled to protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The acts complained by the respondent/complainant by filing a private complaint prima facie do not indicate that these allegations hinge on the official duties as a public servant and therefore, petitioner cannot claim protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.”
The bench added, "The above-culled-out portions which are part of a prima facie material which were produced by the respondent/complainant by recording a sworn statement prima facie demonstrate that these imputations are obviously not made in discharge of her duty."
It also highlighted that the burden of proof was on the accused to show that his/her case comes under any of the exceptions and that he/she is not liable for defamation. Therefore, having taken cognizance of prima facie material, the Court was not inclined to grant any reliefs as claimed in the petition.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the petitioner's request to quash the proceedings, stating that there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed to trial.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Chandrashekhar Swamiji apologises for remark on denying voting rights to Muslims
"If my statement has upset our Muslim brothers, I deeply regret it."
Bengaluru: Kumara Chandrashekharanath Swamiji, head of the Vishva Okkaliga Mahasansthana Mutt, has expressed regret over his controversial statement suggesting that "Muslims should be denied voting rights."
In a press release, Swamiji clarified, "Muslims are also citizens of this country. Like everyone else, they too have voting rights. If my statement yesterday has caused discomfort to our Muslim brothers, I sincerely apologise for it."
He further added, "Okkaligas are inherently tolerant of all religions. We have always treated people of every faith equally. Our Mutt maintains cordial relations with Muslims, and they frequently visit us. Similarly, we attend their weddings and other joyous occasions. Hence, there is no intolerance towards this community." Swamiji appealed to the public to disregard the controversy surrounding his remark.
The controversial statement was made during a farmers' rally, ‘Raita Gharjana,’ organised by the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, Karnataka Pradesh, at Freedom Park, Bengaluru, on Tuesday. Addressing the gathering, Swamiji had said, "A law should be enacted to deny voting rights to the Muslim community, and the Wakf Board should be abolished."
The remark drew widespread criticism from political leaders and the public alike. Following the backlash, Swamiji issued his apology, stating, "Muslims are also citizens of this country. Like everyone else, they too have voting rights. If my statement yesterday has caused discomfort to our Muslim brothers, I sincerely apologise for it."
