Karnataka HC refuses to quash Sindhuri’s defamation case against Roopa
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court declined to quash criminal defamation proceedings initiated against IPS officer D Roopa by IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri.
“If the statements posted on a private account (FB) as well as the statements made before the print media are examined, I am more than satisfied that petitioner/accused Roopa 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...,” said Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum.
These observations were made by the court in the order dated August 21, which was uploaded recently on the web, while dismissing the petition filed by Roopa, questioning the defamation proceedings initiated by Sindhuri against her. She had filed a case before the magistrate court, seeking Rs 1 crore damages for sharing her photos and posted comments on her FB page for allegedly creating a false image. Roopa’s counsel contended that she is entitled to protection under Section 197 of CrPC, which mandates prior sanction from the competent authority before taking cognisance of the offence against a public servant for acts done in official capacity.
Also arguing that the essential ingredients of defamation under Section 499 of IPC are not satisfied in the case, Roopa’s counsel, pointing to the conduct of Sindhuri, contended that the posts and statements in question are made in good faith, and relate to a public servant. Hence, action of the magistrate is contrary to law, he argued.
The high court, however, said the apex court held that if a public servant is involved in any act which does not fall within the domain of duties assigned to her/him, such misdemeanour shall not be treated as an act of his/her official duties, and does not attract protection under Section 197.
The doctrine of state humanity covers all acts performed by a public servant in the exercise of the 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 principle, the high court added.
Roopa filed the petition questioning the order dated March 24, 2023, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, directing the registration of a criminal case and issue of summons to her, based on a private complaint filed by Sindhuri. She also questioned the order dated March 4 taking cognisance under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.