News Date :
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by the wife of Indian cricketer Mohammad Shami challenging orders of a sessions court that stayed an arrest warrant issued against him by a magistrate court [Hasin Jahan v. State of West Bengal].
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) noted that the petitioner Hasin Jahan had accused Shami of domestic violence and also of outraging her modesty. On her complaint, the magistrate court in Alipore issued an arrest warrant instead of summons to Shami and his family members.
“One of the reason given by the Magistrate for issuing the warrant of arrest instead of summons, was that Shami being a cricketer in the Indian team, a bad message would go to the society specially to the petitioner, who may think she has been prejudiced as he is a high profile accused,” the order stated.
In her complaint, Jahan stated that she married Shami on April 7, 2014 and a year later, they were blessed with a girl child. After the birth of the child, she alleged that she came to know that her husband is a womanizer and he maintains steady sexual relations with many women. She further claimed that when she protested and raised her voice against such type of activities, he assaulted her on February 28, 2018.
Despite all this, Jahan claims that she tried to give him a chance, but the ill-treatment continued. She alleged that he stopped looking after her daily expenses and went on making baseless allegations against her through interviews to the media.
Therefore, she lodged a police complaint against him and his family members March 8, 2018. This resulted in a probe and filing of a chargesheet before a magistrate court in Alipore.
The Magistrate issued an arrest warrant against the cricketer. The same was challenged before a sessions court, which by an order passed on September 9, 2019, stayed the said proceedings. Jahan then moved the High Court against this order.
After considering the facts of the case, the Court said that the order issuing an arrest warrant against Shami instead of summons was against the rule of law.
“In the present case the Session Judge passed an order of stay. The hearing of the revision (before sessions court) is still pending. And as such, the order of the Session Judge requires no interference. The order of the Magistrate was not in accordance with law and totally against the principle of natural justice,” the Court said.
Advocates Ashis Kumar Chowdhury and Avijit Kar appeared for Jahan.
Advocate Sujata Das represented the State.
Advocates Sandipan Ganguly, Somopriyo Chowdhury and Biswajit Kumar represented Shami.
