Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Calcutta High Court recently upheld the order dated September 9, 2019, of Sessions Judge Alipore, who had stayed the arrest warrant issued against Mohammad Shami in a domestic violence case in 2018.

The bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) observed that "one of the reasons given by the magistrate for issuing the warrant of arrest instead of summons was that Shami is an Indian cricketer and a negative message would be sent to society, particularly his wife, who may believe she has been prejudiced because he is a high profile accused."

It was stated by Hasin Jahan that she married Shami on April 7, 2014, and that they were blessed with a girl child a year later. She claimed that after the birth of her child, she discovered that her spouse is a womaniser who had ongoing sexual relationships with numerous women.

She also claimed that on February 28, 2018, he assaulted her after she objected and raised her voice against such activities.

Jahan claimed that she tried to give him a chance, but the abuse continued. She claimed that he discontinued paying for her daily expenses and continued to make false accusations against her in media interviews. 

She submitted a written complaint to the Jadavpur police station in March 2018 under Sections 498A (husband or relative of a husband subjecting a woman to cruelty) and 354 (assault or criminal force on a woman with a purpose to outrage her modesty) of IPC.

The Alipore Magistrate issued an arrest warrant against the cricketer. The same was challenged in a Session Court, which stayed the procedures through an order issued on September 9, 2019. Jahan then filed a revision petition before the high court.

The present bench observed that "issuing a warrant instead of summons by a Chief Judicial Magistrate is against the guidelines as provided in some of the important Apex Court judgments."

Justice Dutt relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Miscellaneous Application 2021, which observes that "police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily, and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically."

The bench also relied upon the judgment of Honnaiah T.H. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. SC 2022, where it was held that the "revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC can be exercised where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. A court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction against a final order of acquittal or conviction or an intermediate order that is not interlocutory."

After considering all the facts and cases relied upon, the court noted that the order dated August 29, 2019, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not in accordance with the law and was against the principle of natural justice.

Further, the bench upheld the order dated September 9, 2019, passed by the session judge granting a stay order against the CJM’s order.

Thus, Justice Dutt dismissed the revision petition of Hasin Jahan.

Case Title: Hasin Jahan v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Statute: Indian Penal Code