On Tuesday, Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) of the Calcutta High Court affirmed the decision of the Sessions Judge, Alipore to postpone the arrest of cricketer Mohammad Shami in a domestic violence case brought against him by his wife in 2018. The single judge bench cited a Supreme Court ruling and ruled that the Sessions Judge’s order did not need to be altered while the revision hearing remained pending.
According to the petitioner, cricketer Mohammad Shami is involved in extramarital affairs with multiple women, and when she objected to his behavior, he physically assaulted her on February 23, 2018. As a result, the petitioner filed a written complaint with the Jadavpur police station in March 2018, alleging offenses under Sections 498A and 354 IPC. A charge sheet was filed as a result of the complaint.
In August 2019, the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Alipore issued arrest warrants against Mohammad Shami and his relatives in response to a written complaint filed by his wife accusing him of cruelty and assault. However, the opposite parties appealed the order and a Sessions Judge in Alipore stayed the proceedings until the case could be heard on its merits.
The court pointed out that the Magistrate’s reasoning for issuing a warrant instead of a summons based on Mohammad Shami’s status as a cricketer was contrary to the Supreme Court’s guidelines. The court cited the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, where it was emphasized that arrests should not be made unnecessarily and detention should not be authorized casually. The court also referred to the case of Honnaiah T.H. Vs State of Karnataka and Ors., which held that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC could be used to correct manifest illegality or prevent gross miscarriage of justice in the interest of public justice.
The court held that the magistrate’s order of August 29, 2019 was against the principle of natural justice and not in accordance with the law. It also noted that the sessions judge had rightly granted a stay on the magistrate’s order. Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgments in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Honnaiah T.H. Vs State of Karnataka and Ors., the court concluded that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC can be exercised for correcting manifest illegality or preventing gross miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition.
Source: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/calcutta-high-court-cricketer-mohammad-shami-cruelty-assault-case-hasin-jahan-225011
Innocents should not be implicated merely because they belong to an affluent background and court orders relating to them should set an example.