The Supreme Court in the case of Varkey Joseph vs. State of Kerala, rep. By the Circle Inspector
of Police AIR 1993 SC 1892 held that:-
“Suspicion is not the substitute for proof. There is a long distance between “may be true” and “must be true” and the prosecution has to travel all the way to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt. We have already seen that the prosecution not only not proved its case but
palpably produced false evidence and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case
against the appellant let alone beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant and he alone
committed the offence. We had already allowed the appeal and acquitted him by our order dated
April 12, 1993 and set the appellant at liberty which we have little doubt that it was carried out
by date. The appeal is allowed and the appellant stands acquitted of the offence under Section
302 I.P.C.”

The Supreme Court has enunciated the following grounds for quashing of FIR under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the High Court:

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which are inherent in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash Under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power Under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

Section 19 of the Act, provides for the following duties to be undertaken by the Employer:-

1. Provide a safe working environment at the workplace which shall include safety from the persons coming into contact at the workplace;
2. Display at any conspicuous place in the workplace, the penal consequences of sexual harassments; and the order constituting, the Internal Committee under Sub-section (1) of section 4;
3. Organise workshops and awareness programmes at regular intervals for sensitising the employees with the provisions of the Act and orientation programmes for the members of the Internal Committee in the manner as may be prescribed;
4. Provide necessary facilities to the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, for dealing with the complaint and conducting an inquiry;
5. Assist in securing the attendance of respondent and witnesses before the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be;
6. Make available such information to the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, as it may require having regard to the complaint made under sub-section (1) of section 9;
7. Provide assistance to the woman if she so chooses to file a complaint in relation to the offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other law time being in force;
8. Cause to initiate action, under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in force, against the perpetrator, or if the aggrieved woman so desires, where the perpetrator is not an employee, in the workplace at which the incident of sexual harassment took place;
9. Treat sexual harassment as a misconduct under the service rules and initiate action for such misconduct;
10. Monitor the timely submission of reports by the Internal Committee.

You can file a criminal complaint for defamation and also report it to the cyber cell of the police station. Simultaneously a civil suit seeking an injunction against such publication and damages can be brought about against the author of the post.

On-Call Legal Consultation