The Supreme Court has instructed the Sessions Judge in West Bengal to address and resolve the plea of Mohammad Shami’s estranged wife within a month. It was emphasized that if this timeframe cannot be met, the sessions judge may issue an order to modify the stay order. The Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, along with Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, found merit in the petition filed by Shami’s wife, noting that the matter had not been heard for the past four years.
In August 2019, an arrest warrant was issued against Shami by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was subsequently stayed by the Sessions Court in September 2019, halting the entire criminal trial. The Supreme Court observed that the proceedings had not been addressed and the trial’s stay had persisted for the past four years. Consequently, the court directed the respective sessions judge to address and dispose of the criminal revision within one month. Additionally, if this timeline proves unfeasible, the sessions judge may modify the stay order.
Shami’s estranged wife challenged the Calcutta High Court’s order from March 28, 2023, which dismissed her plea to quash the Session Court’s order. The arrest warrant issued against Shami had been stayed by a Sessions Court in West Bengal. Represented by her counsels Deepak Prakash, Advocate-on-Record, Nachiketa Vajpayee, and Divyangna Malik Vajpayee, Advocates, Shami’s wife filed a petition in the Supreme Court, alleging that Shami had demanded dowry from her.
According to the petition, the arrest warrant was issued against Shami in August 2019, challenged by him before the Sessions Court, resulting in the stay of the arrest warrant and the entire criminal trial proceedings in September 2019. Shami’s wife approached the Calcutta High Court but did not receive a favorable order. She then moved the Supreme Court against the Calcutta High Court’s order from March 28, 2023, arguing that the order violated her right to a speedy trial.
In her plea before the Supreme Court, Shami’s wife expressed concern that celebrities should not receive special treatment under the law. She highlighted that the trial had been stayed for the past four years, without valid justification, in a case where Shami did not even request a stay of the criminal trial. She argued that the Sessions Court had acted erroneously and unfairly, jeopardizing and prejudicing her rights and interests. The petitioner further contended that the stay order granted in favor of the accused was unlawful and had caused significant harm to her, as she had been a victim of the accused’s brutal assault and violence. She criticized the District and Sessions Court in Alipore, as well as the Calcutta High Court, for granting a one-sided advantage to the accused, which went against the principles of natural justice.
