Pooja Sharma, Chief Assistant Director for the film 'The Diary of West Bengal', filed an FIR in Delhi accusing film director Sanoz Mishra of rape (under Section 376), coercion, forced abortion, blackmail, and abuse after a live-in relationship and professional working dynamic spanning five years. Following the rejection of Sanoz Mishra's anticipatory bail plea by the Delhi High Court, Delhi Police arrested him from a room in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. However, shortly after his arrest, Pooja Sharma released a video from Connaught Place in Delhi recanting her allegations, claiming she was misled, provoked, and emotionally blackmailed by third parties—including Wasim Rizvi, lawyers, and associates—due to disputes and jealousy surrounding Mishra's decision to launch viral figure Monalisa in a film project.
Country: India
State/Province: Delhi, India
City/Region: Delhi
Incident Type: Rape
Relationship Status: Live-in relationship
Relationship Duration: 5 years
Incident Date: June 18, 2021
Relationship Origins:
Relationship Stages:
Contributing Factors:
Red Flags:
Motives:
Relationship Outcomes:
How the relationship or connection began.
5 years
Important relationship phases recorded for this case.
Reported red flags or early concern points.
Contributing factors and possible motives from the available sources.
2021-06-18
Recorded relationship or case outcome.
English labels are shown first. Original-language titles are preserved for source verification.
Jealousy
The relationship involved a multi-year cohabitation and professional partnership between a film director and his chief assistant director. Following interpersonal conflicts fueled by external political/personal rivals and jealousy over the casting of a new viral figure, the relationship dynamics rapidly degraded into formal criminal allegations. The dynamic highlights how interpersonal jealousy and third-party intervention can compound domestic friction into severe legal escalations.
Sanoz Mishra was arrested from a location in Ghaziabad by Delhi Police (Nabi Karim Police Station) after the Delhi High Court rejected his anticipatory bail application. An FIR under IPC sections 376 (rape) and 554 was registered, and Section 164 statements were recorded before a magistrate. Following his arrest, the complainant released a public video statement declaring Mishra innocent and alleging that third parties forced false sections into the complaint. Law enforcement must verify the authenticity of the recantation video, assess potential witness intimidation or coercion, and reconcile the initial legal statements with subsequent filings.
Significant investigative confusion stems from the complete 360-degree reversal of the complainant's statement. While the police registered an FIR based on serious allegations of rape, forced abortion, and blackmail, the complainant subsequently claimed that key elements of the FIR were fabricated by legal advisers and instigators without her consent.
Pooja Sharma and Sanoz Mishra shared a 5-year personal and professional live-in arrangement. Conflict escalated when Mishra planned to launch Monalisa in a film project. Capitalizing on domestic friction, third parties allegedly persuaded Sharma to lodge a rape FIR against Mishra. After Mishra's bail was rejected and he was arrested in Ghaziabad, Sharma publicly recanted her claims in a video from Connaught Place, asserting that her initial statement was coerced and fabricated.
The case reflects high volatility driven by third-party influence, conflicting public declarations, and coercive legal maneuvering. Public declarations of threats to personal safety by the complainant highlight ongoing emotional distress and potential vulnerability to coercion from opposing factions.
Severe domestic arguments combined with third-party manipulation can lead to complex legal claims and rapid recantations. Law enforcement must rigorously evaluate Section 164 court statements against subsequent recantation videos to detect potential coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation.
Disputes over professional casting choices and long-standing personal arguments between the live-in partners were key early warning signs of escalating instability.
The initial police FIR and Section 164 magistrate statement served as official documentation of charges, which contrasted sharply with the complainant's subsequent public recantation video.
Key evidence includes the formal FIR registered at Nabi Karim Police Station, Section 164 statements, the bail rejection order from the Delhi High Court, affidavits submitted by the complainant, and the viral recantation video recorded at Connaught Place.
Pooja Sharma stated in her video: 'I was living with Sanoz Ji of my own free will. I have been living with him for five years... Wasim Rizvi provoked me extensively... Sanoz is completely innocent. He did not rape me.' She also stated that legal advisers added false rape charges without her agreement.
Follow-up reporting revealed a public recantation by the alleged victim, completely shifting the narrative from a straightforward rape investigation to an alleged conspiracy involving third-party instigation.
It remains unresolved whether the recantation was made under duress or accurately reflects the initial facts, and how the court will address the conflicting statements recorded under Section 164 versus the recantation affidavit.