LI Network
Published on: 22 September 2023 at 15:29 IST
The Karnataka High Court has declined to dismiss the defamation complaint lodged against IPS officer D Roopa by IAS Officer Rohini Sindhuri. Sindhuri had accused Roopa of disseminating defamatory content against her.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum rejected Roopa’s argument that her statements, which formed the basis of the private complaint, were made in her official capacity and therefore, the Magistrate should not have entertained the private complaint for the offense under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) without the requisite sanction.
The Court emphasized that the “Doctrine of state humanity” applies to acts performed by a public servant in the execution of government functions, not to acts done by the public servant for their personal benefit or pleasure, even if done under the authority of their position. Such acts do not fall under the immunity principles.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is limited to acts or omissions carried out by a public servant in the discharge of official duties.
The case arose from a private complaint filed by IAS Officer Rohini Sindhuri, alleging that IPS Officer D Roopa had shared photos of her 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.
Sindhuri asserted that these posts, comments, and statements were false, malicious, and intended to harm her reputation, and therefore, she filed a complaint under Section 500 of the 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 because her statements fell under exceptions 2, 3, and 9 of Section 499. It was further argued that the allegations against Roopa were based on reports and publications already in the public domain and related to public questions, making them exempt from Section 499.
On the contrary, Sindhuri’s counsel argued that there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed against Roopa, and the case should go to trial. Whether the statements fell under exceptions or were made in good faith, according to them, should be determined during a full-fledged trial.
The Court examined the prima facie material presented by the complainant and concluded that it justified the initiation of a criminal trial against Roopa. It noted that the determination of whether the posts and statements fell under exceptions or were made in good faith should be made during the trial, and the burden of proof rested with the accused.
Regarding the issue of sanction, the Court found that the acts complained of by the complainant were not related to the official duties of Roopa as a public servant. Therefore, Roopa was not entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. The Court held that this was not a case that warranted court interference.
In conclusion, the Court dismissed Roopa’s request to quash the proceedings, as there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed to trial. The Court emphasized that Roopa’s actions were not protected under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., as they did not pertain to her official duties.
Case Title: D Roopa And Rohini Sindhuri