Home  /  Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013  /  Section 27

Section 27: Cognizance of offence by courts

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2013
Section 26 All 30 Sections of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Section 28

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 27

Section 27 governs the criminal procedure and jurisdictional limits for taking cognizance of offenses punishable under the POSH Act, restricting complaints to the aggrieved woman or authorized committee representatives, mandating trial by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class, and classifying all offenses as non-cognizable.

  • Strict Locus Standi for Criminal Cognizance: Sub-section (1) prohibits any court from taking cognizance of an offense punishable under the Act (such as Section 26 employer defaults or Section 17 confidentiality breaches) except upon a formal complaint filed by the aggrieved woman or a person authorized by the IC or LC.
  • Court Competency and Magisterial Jurisdiction: Sub-section (2) establishes that no court inferior to a Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) or Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (JMFC) shall try any offense punishable under the Act.
  • Non-Cognizable Character of Statutory Offenses: Sub-section (3) classifies every offense under the POSH Act as non-cognizable; police officers have no power to register an FIR or arrest without a warrant under Section 155 CrPC / Section 174 BNSS for statutory POSH offenses.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: The Supreme Court held that where there is an express statutory bar engrafted in the Act to the institution or cognizance of criminal proceedings, taking cognizance without meeting statutory conditions is illegal and liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
  • Global Health Private Limited v. Local Complaints Committee, District Indore (2020 SCC OnLine MP 4543): The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a unilateral penalty imposed on an employer, holding that penal consequences under Section 26 can only be enforced via criminal trial before a Judicial Magistrate pursuant to a Section 27 complaint.
  • P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24: Reaffirmed the principle that when a special statute prescribes a specific manner and forum for taking cognizance of offenses, that procedure must be strictly followed to the exclusion of general procedures.
  • Dr. Punita K. Sodhi v. Union of India (2010 SCC OnLine Del 3173): The High Court emphasized that statutory conditions precedent for taking cognizance under gender-protection statutes must be strictly interpreted to preserve procedural safeguards.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Defense strategy in Section 26 prosecutions: examine whether the private complaint filed before the Magistrate was accompanied by a valid written authorization/resolution from the IC or LC; if filed by an unauthorized labor inspector or police officer without IC resolution, move for quashing under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS or discharge under Section 245 / 251 CrPC (Section 262/268 BNSS); emphasize that police cannot register an FIR under POSH Act directly due to Section 27(3).

Section 26 All 30 Sections of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Section 28