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.
''Has India outsourced its foreign policy to US?'' asks Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge
Bengaluru/Kalaburagi, May 13 (PTI): Terming Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address to the nation as ‘yet another monologue’, Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge on Tuesday sought to know why the US President Donald Trump announced the "ceasefire" and not the Indian Prime Minister.
Kharge, the son of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, wondered whether India has outsourced its foreign policy to the United States.
"Prime Minister has given yet another monologue," the Minister told PTI in Kalaburagi.
He was referring to Modi’s address to the nation on Monday night.
Kharge said the Congress and all the opposition parties have clearly stated that they were with the government for any decisive decision that they are taking in the interest of the country.
“We are asking the PM for an all-party meeting, brief us on what has happened, what the ceasefire is for, what the conditions of the ceasefire were, and why the American President Donald Trump announced the ceasefire and not the Prime Minister of India,” the Minister said.
He said the Congress has asked the BJP-led Centre to convene a parliament session to inform the nation what has happened during the ‘Operation Sindoor’.
"But unfortunately, as usual, the PM chooses to go in for a monologue rather than the dialogue with the people of the country,” the Minister said.
Kharge said the Congress and other opposition parties had made it clear that they were with the government and the Indian army “but things need to come clear”.
“Has the government of India, has the Prime Minister, or the External Affairs Minister outsourced the foreign policy of the country to the United States of America?” the Minister said.
He added, “Why is the US President tweeting not once but thrice saying that he is the mediator for the ceasefire and he is saying, he has gone to the extent of saying that he spoke to both the Prime Ministers and it is more of an economic ceasefire, rather than a military ceasefire.”
Priyank Kharge underlined that it was the Prime Minister of India whom the Indians look up to and not the president of another country.
He also sought to know why a bilateral issue is becoming an international issue when Modi is at the helm of affairs.
Congress MLC B K Hariprasad said Modi did not even show 0.1 per cent of the courage and determination of late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
He recalled that in 1971, Indira Gandhi faced several impediments and adversaries in the international forum, but she divided Pakistan into two.
“It is obvious to remember Indira Gandhi on this occasion, who had earned the fame of the Iron Lady in the entire world,” Hariprasad told reporters in Bengaluru.
