Manav Sharma, who worked as a manager in an IT company in Mumbai, died by suicide on February 24 in Agra’s Defence Colony. He had reportedly been facing harassment from his wife, Nikita Sharma. The couple had married in January 2024.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has refused to interfere with an FIR filed against the wife and in-laws of Manav Sharma, an IT executive who died by suicide in Agra. The court stated that the FIR revealed a “prima facie” case of a cognizable offence.
The bench, comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar, passed the judgment on Wednesday while hearing a writ petition filed by Nipendra Kumar Sharma, the father-in-law of Manav Sharma, along with three others.
After examining the FIR, the court noted,
“Prima facie, it reveals commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned FIR.”
The court further said, “Therefore the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail as permissible under.”
Case Background
The FIR was registered on February 28 at the Sadar Bazar Police Station under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 108, accusing Manav’s wife Nikita Sharma, her parents, and her siblings of abetting his suicide.
Manav Sharma, who worked as a manager in an IT company in Mumbai, had died by suicide on February 24 in Agra’s Defence Colony. He had reportedly been facing harassment from his wife, Nikita Sharma. The couple had married in January 2024.
The FIR was lodged by Narendra Kumar Sharma, Manav’s father, who alleged that his son was driven to suicide due to harassment by his wife and her family.
The petitioners, including Nipendra Kumar Sharma, argued that they were innocent and had been wrongly implicated. They claimed the accusations were false and made with malicious intent.
Their counsel stated, “They have not committed any offence and they have been implicated due to malicious intention. They are innocent person and allegations levelled against them are highly improbable and unbelievable as such the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.”
The petitioners sought the quashing of the FIR and protection from arrest. However, the Additional Government Advocate opposed the plea, stating that the FIR clearly disclosed a cognizable offence and therefore should not be quashed.
Considering the arguments, the court found no reason to interfere with the FIR. However, it left the option open for the petitioners to approach the competent court for anticipatory bail.
