Mohammed Shami's wife Hasin Jahan's lawyer Zakir Hussain has questioned the basis on which the Board of Control of Cricket in India's (BCCI) Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU) decided to clear the India speedster of match-fixing allegations.

"My client's allegation was never about match fixing. I cannot raise any allegation on BCCI, but I want to know on what basis and parameters was BCCI's investigation based," Hussain told ANI. "We never made direct allegations of match-fixing on Mohammed Shami. Neither verbally nor in written," he added.

Hussain's comments, made after BCCI decided to give Shami a clean chit, do not make sense. It was his client, Shami's wife, who had accused the cricketer for fixing matches. Jahan had initially alleged the 28-year-old took money from a Pakistani girl named Alishba in Dubai. She stressed it was on the insistence of England-based businessman Mohammed Bhai that Shami took the money.

However, Shami's wife made a U-turn later and denied making those allegations against the bowler. Jahan stressed she does not understand the sport enough to make such claims and it was the player himself who was bringing the match-fixing angle into the ongoing controversy.

The Uttar Pradesh-born bowler's wife made several accusations against him, which include cheating on her, assaulting her and forcing her to have a physical relationship with his brother. Soon after, BCCI put Shami's annual retainership contract on hold.

Mohammed Shami
The Kolkata police are investigating adultery and assault charges against Mohammed ShamiGetty Images

The BCCI launched an investigation to find out if Shami has violated the BCCI ACU code. The ACU found there was no wrongdoing on Shami's part, insofar as payments related to alleged match-fixing were concerned, and decided to give him a clean chit. The Supreme Court of India-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) also decided to include the pacer in BCCI's Grade B contract, worth an annual Rs. 3 crore.

When Jahan and her lawyer are stressing that they never made a complaint, either verbally or in written about Shami being involved in match-fixing, then they should not question the BCCI's decision to clear the bowler's name of fixing charges.

The ACU investigation will look at matters related to cricket and cricket alone. If they find no evidence of Shami's involvement in match-fixing, then they are well within their right to say the player is innocent.

However, Jahan or her lawyer, Hussain should not question the "basis and parameters was BCCI's investigation based." There are also other allegations made against Shami, which includes adultery and torture, things BCCI will not investigate, unless the CoA asks it to, which it hasn't done yet.

A First Information Report (FIR) about non-cricket matters is already registered by the Kolkata police based on Jahan's complaint. An investigation is ongoing and should Shami be found guilty of those charges, he would likely be punished as per the law.