Key Words : Karnataka High Court, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, Criminal Defamation
According to Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, Moudgil’s comments in print media and on social media called for a criminal trial.
The criminal defamation case brought by IAS official Rohini Sindhuri against IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil was recently denied a stay by the Karnataka High Court. [Rohini Sindhuri vs. D Roopa Moudgil]
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum stated in a ruling he issued on August 21 that Moudgil’s comments in print media and on social media called for a criminal trial.
The Court further stated that a trial was necessary to determine if the utterances would be exempt from prosecution under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with defamation.
Sindhuri learned that Moudgil had made various accusations against her in Facebook posts on February 18. In these messages, Moudgil accused Sindhuri of sharing her photos with other IAS officers, including some that were sexual.
As a result of their subsequent public argument, the State government decided to transfer both policemen.
On February 21, Sindhuri served Moudgil with a legal notice regarding her conduct and requested a written, unequivocal apology as well as compensation of Rs. 1 million for the harm done to her reputation and mental anguish.
On March 24, a Bengaluru court ordering a criminal defamation prosecution against Moudgil was hearing the private lawsuit brought by Sindhuri. Moudgil petitioned the High Court to overturn the same.
The complaint’s circumstances, according to Moudgil, did not meet the requirements for an offense under Section 499 of the IPC.
She contended that no offense was made out against her based on the evidence that was on file. She therefore asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit because otherwise it would be considered abuse of the legal system.
She further argued that her claims directly violated Section 499 of the IPC exceptions 2, 3, and 9.
She added that she made her statements in the course of performing her official duties and in good faith.
However, Sindhuri maintained that the case did not require interference from the court because, at least initially, there was sufficient evidence to proceed against the petitioner.
She claimed that the accusations made against her were presumptively false and that the Court was unable to conduct a mini-inquiry at this time to determine Moudgil’s defense.
The Court found that Moudgil’s comments on her social media accounts and in interviews with the press called for a criminal investigation and trial. The Court further ruled that Moudgil needed to show that her comments were made after careful consideration and research in order to claim good faith.
The Court stated that only a trial would make this possible.
The Court further noted that the utterances first appeared not to have been made in the course of official business.
As a result, the Court determined that Moudgil did not qualify for protection under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which addresses the prosecution of judges and other public officials).
As a result, the Court rejected Moudgil’s request as being without merit. Madhukar M. Deshpande, an attorney, acted as Moudgil’s representative. Senior Attorney CV Nagesh and attorney Raghavendra K defended Sindhuri.
Name : Pallavi Sethi intern under legal vidhiya.
0 Comments