Workplace sexual harassment complaints sometimes name several people: the colleague or supervisor alleged to have harassed the complainant, others alleged to have joined in remarks or forwarded messages, managers alleged to have ignored her complaints, and sometimes company directors. Each person naturally worries that they will be tried together. That is not how the law works. The discharge of multiple accused in a workplace sexual harassment case depends on each person's individual role, and courts regularly discharge persons with no specific involvement while the case continues against others. Let me explain how this works in the criminal case and how it interacts with the POSH inquiry.

Start with the principle. Criminal liability is personal. The 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). Each is committed by the person who does the prohibited act. Others can be liable only through common intention under Section 3(5) BNS (formerly Section 34 IPC), abetment under Section 45 BNS (formerly Section 107 IPC), or conspiracy under Section 61 BNS (formerly Section 120B IPC), each needing specific material.

The procedural provision reflects this individual approach. Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 239 CrPC) requires the Magistrate to discharge "the accused" where the charge "against the accused" is groundless. Each accused may apply within sixty days of supply of documents. The standard from Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979), grave suspicion rather than mere suspicion, applies to each person separately.

Consider the different roles. The person alleged to have made advances, demanded sexual favours, or made sexually coloured remarks may face Section 75. A colleague alleged only to have laughed at a remark, without making one, has not committed the offence unless the material shows abetment. A person alleged to have forwarded sexually explicit material may face charges under Section 67 or 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, rather than Section 75. A person alleged to have threatened the complainant after she complained may face criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS. Each charge must match the person's own conduct.

Managers who allegedly failed to act on a complaint are in a distinct position. Failure to act on a complaint is primarily a matter for the POSH framework, which places duties on the employer under Section 19 and provides a penalty for non-compliance under Section 26. It is not, in itself, an offence under Sections 74 to 79 BNS. A manager can be criminally liable only if the material shows that he personally committed or abetted a specific offence. Where the chargesheet shows only inaction, discharge is a strong possibility.

Company directors and senior executives are often named simply because of their position. In Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat (2008) and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015), the Supreme Court held that there is no vicarious criminal liability for company officers under the general penal law unless a statute provides for it, and that a person can be summoned only on specific allegations of personal involvement. Directors named without any allegation of personal conduct have a strong ground for discharge or quashing.

To prepare a defence tailored to each person, consult the corporate and criminal defence advocates at Aapka Legal Advice. They will map the allegations against each accused, distinguish personal conduct from institutional roles, and advise whether separate representation is needed. In workplace cases, it is often important that managers and directors are not tied to the case against the principal accused.

Our panel of retired judges, including former High Court judges, retired Sessions Judges, and retired Chief Judicial Magistrates who have handled workplace harassment cases and related service disputes, can review each accused's position. Working with the Top Criminal Lawyers in India | Aapka Legal Advice, they help seek individual relief for each person.

The Supreme Court's approach to omnibus allegations applies here too. In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022), it held that general allegations against several persons, without specific roles, cannot sustain prosecution. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), it held that proceedings may be quashed where the allegations do not disclose an offence against the person concerned. In complaint cases, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) requires the Magistrate to apply his mind to each accused before summoning, and the proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS gives each accused a pre-cognizance hearing.

Summons and warrant offences may create different routes. The lower tier of Section 75 BNS, sexually coloured remarks, carries up to one year and is a summons case, where there is no discharge stage, as held in Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra (2004). A person facing only that charge may seek stoppage of proceedings under Section 281 BNSS where applicable, quashing under Section 528 BNSS, or acquittal. Persons facing warrant offences may seek discharge under Section 262 BNSS.

The POSH inquiry is also person-specific. Under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the Internal Committee inquires into the conduct of each "respondent" as defined in Section 2(m). A finding against one respondent does not automatically extend to others. Each respondent may raise preliminary objections, file a separate reply, and appeal under Section 18. The Committee's findings do not bind the criminal court, and the two proceedings can run simultaneously, as held in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999).

Your discharge applications should be structured person by person. Each should state the accused's position, what the complainant's statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS say about that person specifically, whether any emails, messages, or CCTV show his involvement, and what role, if any, is alleged. A chart listing each allegation and the person said to be responsible helps the Magistrate see who is genuinely implicated.

Certain limits apply equally to all accused. The complainant's character is irrelevant. Her credible testimony can support conviction, as recognised in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996). Defence documents are generally excluded at the charge stage, following State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005), though workplace records collected by the police may be summoned under Section 94 BNSS, as recognised in Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy (2018), with a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. No accused should contact or retaliate against the complainant or witnesses.

Bail is assessed individually. The Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) safeguards apply, and a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS should ordinarily precede arrest. Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS can be sought separately, and managers or directors with no personal role often obtain it readily. If discharge is refused to some accused, each may file a revision 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 rights under Articles 14 and 21.

Further recourse by persons wrongly implicated should be pursued only after the proceedings end in their favour. Options include action under Section 14 of the POSH Act for a malicious complaint, and proceedings under Section 217 BNS (formerly Section 182 IPC), Section 248 BNS (formerly Section 211 IPC), criminal defamation under Section 356 BNS, or a civil suit for malicious prosecution.

To conclude, yes, the discharge of multiple accused in a workplace sexual harassment case can and often does differ according to each person's role. The person who committed the prohibited act may face trial, while colleagues without specific involvement, managers accused only of inaction, and directors named merely for their position are frequently discharged. Build each application person by person and file within sixty days. With experienced criminal lawyers and retired judges guiding you, a role-wise strategy can secure the discharge of multiple accused in a workplace sexual harassment case who had no real part in the conduct alleged. This is general legal information, and your specific facts should be reviewed by a qualified advocate.