Karnataka High Court refuses to quash criminal defamation case by IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri against IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash the criminal defamation case initiated by IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri against IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil. [D Roopa Moudgil vs Rohini Sindhuri].In an order passed on August 21, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed that Moudgil's statements on her social media account as well as print media warranted a criminal trial.The Court added that the question of whether the statements would fall under exceptions under section 499 (defamation) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) was a matter of trial as well.."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," the Court said..On February 18, Sindhuri had discovered that Moudgil had made several allegations against her in Facebook posts. In these posts, Moudgil accused Sindhuri of sharing her pictures including explicit ones with fellow IAS officers.This led to a public spat between the two prompting the State government to transfer both officers.On February 21, Sindhuri issued a legal notice to Moudgil over her actions and demanded an unconditional apology in writing as well as ₹1 crore in damages for the loss of her reputation and mental agony..On March 24, a Bengaluru court which was hearing the private suit filed by Sindhuri, ordered a criminal defamation case against Moudgil. Moudgil moved the High Court to have the same quashed..Moudgil contended that the facts alleged in the complaint did not satisfy the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 499 of IPC.Referring to the material on record, she argued that no offence was made out against her. Therefore, she requested the Court to quash the complaint failing which the same would amount to abuse of legal process.She also contended that her statements squarely fell under exception 2, 3 and 9 of Section 499 of IPC.Further, she contended that her statements were made in good faith and in discharge of her official functions..On the other hand, Sindhuri contended that prima facie there was enough material to proceed against the petitioner and therefore, argued that the case did not warrant interference of the High Court.She asserted that the statements against her were prima facie defamatory and that the Court could not hold a mini enquiry at the juncture to decide Moudgil's defence..After concluding that Moudgil's statements on her social media account as well as before the print media warranted a criminal trial, the Court stated that in order to claim good faith, Moudgil needed to demonstrate that her statements were made post enquiries with due care and attention.This would be possible only during the course of a trial, the Court said..Further, the Court observed that that statements prima facie did not seem to have been made in discharge of official duty. As such, the Court held that Moudgil was not entitled to protection under section 197 (Prosecution of Judges and public servants) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).Accordingly, the Court deemed Moudgil's plea as devoid of merits and dismissed it..Moudgil was represented by advocate Madhukar M Deshpande.Sindhuri was represented by Senior Advocate CV Nagesh and advocate Raghavendra K..[Read Order]