Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Taking Cognizance Of IPS Officer Roopa Moudgil's Defamation Complaint Against IAS Officer Rohini Sindhuri

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a plea by IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri challenging a trial court order taking cognizance of a criminal defamation complaint lodged by IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil, observing that it was well reasoned passed with due application of mind.

Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order noted that when Sindhuri had lodged criminal defamation proceedings against Moudgil, then the latter's plea challenging the same before the high court was dismissed on the ground that Moudgil had made the alleged statements in good faith. The court thus said:

"It bears emphasis that this very plea was urged by the respondent (Moudgil) in the earlier proceedings and was repelled by a coordinate bench of this Court, which held in unambiguous terms that question of good faith is a matter of evidence to be adjudicated in the crucible of a full fledged trial. The order is quoted hereinabove. The law does not countenance a differential application of principle. What was held to be triable issue for one party cannot metamorphose into a shield for the other at the threshold stage. The adage “what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander” becomes apposite, in the circumstances obtaining in the case at hand".

Referring to Supreme Court judgments the court said that whether or not the statement is made for public good is a question of fact and public good, like good faith, is a matter of evidence and not conjecture.

"Good faith, by its very nature, is not presumed; it must be pleaded, proved and established by demonstrating due care, caution and absence of malice. The enquiry into such matters is impermissible at this insipient stage," it added.

On Sindhuri's contention that the cognizance order suffers from non application of mind the court said,

"The order reveals a meticulous and exhaustive consideration of the complaint, sworn statements, objections and documentary material. The learned Magistrate has adverted to rival contentions, framed points for consideration and recorded cogent reasons for arriving at a prima facie satisfaction. It is trite that at the stage of issuance of process, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or embark upon a roving enquiry into the disputed facts. The order impugned reflects neither mechanical exercise nor abdication of judicial duty. On the contrary, it manifests due application of mind commensurate with the stage of the proceedings".

The court also observed that there was no delay in lodging of Moudgil's complaint.

Background

The petitioner said that she came across a Facebook post on 18-02-2023 on the respondent's Facebook page wherein she had allegedly posted several derogatory remarks against the petitioner concerning various issues. Further allegation was that the petitioner had constructed a massive bungalow in Jalahalli, but had not reported the same in her immovable property returns while filing periodically by All India Service Officers.

Based on the posts, the petitioner filed a defamation suit against the respondent in 2023 seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the respondent, from making any false and defamatory statements. An ad interim order was passed by the Civil Court.

On the score again that the allegations were per se defamatory, the petitioner also filed a private complaint invoking the Section 500 IPC for criminal defamation; on which cognizance was taken by the trial court.

This order was challenged by respondent before the high court and her plea was dismissed. The matter went to the Supreme Court which had directed the parties to arrive at a settlement and contemporaneously directed the respondent to delete all the posts that were allegedly defamatory, which the respondent had complied. Later, the plea was withdrawn from the Supreme Court.

After withdrawal, the respondent filed a complaint on 09-12-2024 alleging that the petitioner (Sindhuri) has also indulged in making derogatory remarks against the respondent by calling her "mentally unsound or ill". The complaint was registered post enactment of BNSS i.e., 01-07-2024 and as per procedure, notice was issued to the petitioner and after she filed a reply, cognizance was taken and process was issued against the petitioner.

Sindhuri had challenged the proceedings initiated on Moudgil's complaint before the high court. On previous occasions the court had granted time to the parties to settle the matter; however the matter could not be settled.

The high court dismissed the petition.

Case title: SMT. ROHINI SINDHURI, IAS v/s SMT. ROOPA DIVAKAR MOUDGIL

WRIT PETITION No.3379 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order