When a workplace complaint turns into a criminal case and the police file a chargesheet, many professionals assume a trial is inevitable. It is not. If the chargesheet does not disclose a prima facie case, you can be discharged in a workplace sexual harassment case, because no court may send a person to trial without material showing each ingredient of the offence charged. I should be candid, though. If the complainant's statement clearly describes conduct of a sexual nature that was unwelcome, the court will usually find a prima facie case. Discharge succeeds where the record, read as a whole, does not show the legal elements against you. Let me explain what that means.

First, a clarification. A chargesheet arises only in the criminal case. The Internal Committee inquiry under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 does not produce a chargesheet; it produces a report under Section 13 after an inquiry under Section 11, on the preponderance of probabilities. The prima facie test discussed here applies to the criminal proceeding, where the police file a report under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), formerly Section 173 CrPC.

The criminal offences usually involved are sexual harassment under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 354A IPC), outraging modesty under Section 74 BNS (formerly Section 354 IPC), stalking under Section 78 BNS (formerly Section 354D IPC), and insulting modesty under Section 79 BNS (formerly Section 509 IPC). For warrant offences, discharge lies under Section 262 BNSS (formerly Section 239 CrPC), within sixty days of supply of documents under Section 230 BNSS. For complaint cases, Section 268 BNSS (formerly Section 245 CrPC) applies.

A "prima facie case" means that the material, taken at face value and left unrebutted, would reasonably support a conviction. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979), the Supreme Court held that grave suspicion justifies a charge, while mere suspicion does not. In State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) and M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI (2020), it stressed that the material must disclose each ingredient of the offence.

Apply this to each offence. For Section 75 BNS, the chargesheet must show physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, a demand or request for sexual favours, showing pornography against the woman's will, or sexually coloured remarks. For Section 74 BNS, it must show assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty, as explained in Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra (2004) and Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill (1995). For Section 78, it must show repeated following or contact despite clear disinterest, or monitoring of electronic communication, outside the statutory exceptions. For Section 79, it must show words or gestures intended to insult modesty.

Workplace chargesheets fail this test in recognisable ways. Some describe only professional criticism, strict supervision, or disputes over targets, without any conduct of a sexual nature. Some describe work-related emails or calls as "harassment" without any sexual content. Some contain a single general sentence about "inappropriate behaviour" with no description of the act. Some rely entirely on the Internal Committee's report, which applies a different standard and does not by itself establish the ingredients of a criminal offence.

The prima facie test also governs the provision charged. Where the material shows only sexually coloured remarks, there may be a prima facie case under the lower tier of Section 75 BNS, a summons offence carrying up to one year, but not under Section 74. Where it shows professional communications sent for legitimate purposes, the exceptions in Section 78 may apply. The Magistrate can discharge from the more serious charge while framing the correct one.

Context matters too. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Supreme Court recognised that proceedings instituted with an ulterior motive may be quashed. In Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023), it urged courts to read between the lines in vexatious cases. Where the chargesheet shows that the complaint followed an adverse appraisal, disciplinary action, or termination, and contains no earlier complaint or independent material of sexual conduct, the court may find no genuine prima facie case.

To test your chargesheet against these requirements, arrange a confidential chargesheet review with Aapka Legal Advice. An advocate will compare the complainant's statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the POSH complaint, and the workplace records collected by the police against the ingredients of each offence.

Our panel of retired judges can add a valuable perspective:

• Who: former High Court judges, retired Sessions Judges and retired Chief Judicial Magistrates experienced in sexual harassment cases.
• What: they assess whether the chargesheet genuinely discloses the ingredients of Sections 74, 75, 78 or 79 BNS against you.
• How: they work with the Top Criminal Lawyers in India | Aapka Legal Advice to present a focused argument before the Magistrate.

You must understand what does not show the absence of a prima facie case. The complainant's character or personal life is irrelevant. Her credible testimony can support conviction, as recognised in sexual offence cases such as State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996). The absence of eyewitnesses is not decisive, because such conduct often occurs privately. A POSH finding in your favour does not automatically defeat the criminal case, because the two proceedings are independent, as held in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999).

Evidence collected by the police but omitted from the chargesheet can be important. Workplace emails, chat logs, access records, or CCTV footage showing that the alleged interaction did not occur, or was professional, may be summoned under Section 94 BNSS, as recognised in Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy (2018). Electronic evidence requires a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 65B of the Evidence Act), as held in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020). Otherwise, defence documents are generally excluded, following State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005).

Where the police find no case and file a closure report, the Magistrate may accept it, take cognizance despite it, or order further investigation. In Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985), the Supreme Court held that the informant must be heard before closure is accepted. In complaint cases, the proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS requires the Magistrate to hear the accused before cognizance, giving you an early chance to show that no prima facie case exists.

Limitation can also be relevant. For the lower tier of Section 75 BNS, punishable up to one year, Section 514 BNSS (formerly Section 468 CrPC) requires cognizance within one year. For offences punishable up to three years, the limit is three years. Where cognizance is taken beyond these periods without condonation under Section 519 BNSS, the proceedings can be challenged.

Protect your liberty throughout. The Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) safeguards apply, and a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS should ordinarily precede arrest. Anticipatory bail is available under Section 482 BNSS, and regular bail under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS. If charges are framed despite the absence of a prima facie case, revision lies under Section 438 BNSS, as confirmed in Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. (2021), and the High Court may quash under Section 528 BNSS and Articles 226 and 227. These remedies protect your rights under Articles 14 and 21.

Further recourse is available where the complaint was knowingly false. Section 14 of the POSH Act permits action for a malicious complaint, though not for mere inability to substantiate it. In the criminal domain, you may consider proceedings under Section 217 BNS (formerly Section 182 IPC), Section 248 BNS (formerly Section 211 IPC), criminal defamation under Section 356 BNS, and a civil suit for malicious prosecution, after the case ends in your favour.

In conclusion, if the chargesheet does not show the specific ingredients of Sections 74, 75, 78, or 79 BNS against you, the Magistrate must discharge you under Section 262 BNSS, formerly Section 239 CrPC, or at least frame the correct lesser charge. A POSH report alone cannot supply those ingredients. File within sixty days and rely on the prosecution's own record. With experienced criminal lawyers and retired judges guiding you, you can be discharged in a workplace sexual harassment case where the chargesheet does not disclose a prima facie case. This is general legal information, and your specific facts should be reviewed by a qualified advocate.