On Tuesday, the spouse of Indian cricket player Mohammad Shami filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Courts decision to reject her request to lift the suspension on the arrest warrant issued by a lower court against Shami.The wife of Indian cricket team player Mohammad Shami has contested the Calcutta High Courts ruling on March 28, 2023, in which her plea to annul the Session Courts order was rejected.An arrest warrant issued against Shami was temporarily suspended by a Sessions Court in West Bengal.Mohammad Shamis spouse has filed a petition with the Supreme Court through her attorneys Deepak Prakash, Advocate-on-Record, Nachiketa Vajpayee, and Divyangna Malik Vajpayee, Advocate, alleging that Shami has demanded dowry from her and has been engaged in extramarital affairs with prostitutes, particularly while on BCCI tours in hotel rooms provided by the BCCI, even in the present day.As per the petition, an arrest warrant was issued against Shami by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Alipore on August 29, 2019.Shami challenged the aforementioned order before the Sessions Court, which suspended the arrest warrant and the entire criminal trial proceedings on September 9, 2019.As a result, Shamis spouse went to the Calcutta High Court, but was unsuccessful in obtaining a favourable order.She approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Calcutta High Courts March 28, 2023 order.She argued that the challenged order is clearly mistaken in law and violates her right to a prompt trial.In a petition submitted to the Supreme Court, Shamis wife expressed her apprehension that celebrities should not be treated differently under the law.It is noteworthy that the trial has been halted for the previous four years, and no progress has been made, she stated.The petitioner asserted that the criminal trial has been stayed for the past four years without any reasonable grounds, despite Respondent No. 3 not requesting a stay on the criminal trial. The Respondents only objection was to the issuance of arrest warrants against them. As a result, the Sessions Courts conduct was incorrect and unfair, putting the petitioners rights and interests in jeopardy and harming them.The petitioner argued that the stay on the criminal trial in favour of the accused, who was involved in a brutal assault and violence against her, is unlawful and has caused significant harm to her rights and interests. The petitioner also stated that the orders passed by the District and Sessions Court in Alipore, as well as the High Court at Calcutta, have given undue and one-sided advantage to the accused, which is not only unjust but also goes against the principles of natural justice.
