The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Hasin Jahan, the wife of Indian cricketer Mohammad Shami, challenging sessions court orders that stayed an arrest warrant issued by a magistrate court against him.
A single bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) noted that the petitioner Hasin Jahan had accused Shami of domestic assault as well as insulting her modesty.
In response to her complaint, the Alipore magistrate court 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 reads.
Jahan stated in her complaint that she married Shami on April 7, 2014, and a year later they were blessed with a daughter child. She claimed that after the birth of her child, she discovered that her husband is a womanizer who has ongoing sexual relationships with other women. She further stated that on February 28, 2018, he assaulted her after she protested and raised her voice against such acts.
Despite this, Jahan alleged that she tried to give him a chance, but the abuse continued. She claimed he stopped paying for her daily expenditures and continued to make false accusations against her in public interviews.
As a result, on March 8, 2018, she filed a police report against him and his family members. This prompted an investigation and the filing of a chargesheet before an Alipore magistrate court.
An arrest warrant was issued against Shami by the Magistrate. The same was challenged in a sessions court, which stayed the proceedings with an order issued on September 9, 2019. Jahan then approached the High Court against this order.
After reviewing the facts of the case, the bench 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 single bench stated.
