India and Gujarat Titans cricketer Mohammed Shami's wife Hasin Jahan has moved to the Supreme Court againstĀ Shami challenging the Calcutta High Court order,Ā which invalidated her plea seeking to remove the stay on the arrest warrant against her husband issued by a local court. The petition filed by Mohammad Shami's wife informed the court that an arrest warrant was issued against Shami by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, on August 29, 2019. The said order was challenged by Shami before the Sessions Court, which, on September 9, 2019, stayed the arrest warrant and the entire proceedings of the criminal trial.Ā Stay on Arrest Warrant Against Mohammed Shami Upheld by Calcutta High Court in Domestic Violence Case by Estranged Wife Hasin Jahan.

Jahan filedĀ aĀ case of cruelty and assault againstĀ ShamiĀ in 2018. SheĀ alleged that Shami assaulted her on February 23, 2018 after she protested against the cricketer for allegedly having extra-marital affairs.Ā In March 2018, Hasin Jahan made aĀ written complaint with the Jadavpur police station in March 2018 under Section 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and Section 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code. Shami and his elder brother Hasib Ahmed were questioned by the Kolkata Policeā€™s womenā€™s grievance cell, and an arrest warrant was issued against the cricketer by the Alipore Court.Ā Although the local court of Kolkata put a stay order on the Arrest Warrant.Ā Big Blow to Mohammed Shami, Court Directs Cricketer to Pay Estranged Wife Hasin Jahan Rs 50 Thousand Financial Compensation Every Month.

In the petition to Supreme Court, HasinĀ has alleged that Shami was having illicit relations with prostitutes during his BCCI tours.Ā She also informed the court thatĀ from last 4 years, the trial has not progressed and has remained stayed.Ā ā€œCriminal Trial in the present case has been stayed for the past 4 years, without any just circumstances, in a case wherein Respondent NoĀ 3 did not even pray for the stay of criminal trial and his sole grievance was only against the issuance of Arrest warrants against them, thus, the Sessions Court acted in an erroneous and biased manner, by virtue of which the rights and interests of the Petitioner have been severally jeopardized and prejudiced,ā€ the petitioner said.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on May 03, 2023 11:13 AM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).