Delhi HC Protects Husband from Repeated Summons in Dowry Case, Allows Video Conferencing for Investigation

The Delhi High Court has allowed a petitioner to join further investigation in a dowry related case through video conferencing, holding that repeated summons requiring his travel from Kolkata to Delhi despite earlier cooperation would amount to harassment and an abuse of the process of law.

The case was heard in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, where the petitioner sought relief from the repeated requirement of physical presence before the Investigating Officer in Delhi.

The order was passed by Justice Arun Monga on September 15, 2025, in W.P.(CRL) 2964/2025.

The petitioner, represented by Advocates Rattandip Singh, Divya Tripathi and Pritha Khanna from Tripaksha Litigation, placed before the Court that he had already travelled from Kolkata to Delhi on three separate occasions to join the investigation and had his statements duly recorded.

It was submitted that despite his compliance and demonstration of good faith, he continued to face repeated summons compelling his presence in Delhi, which caused undue hardship.

Counsel argued that this conduct amounted to harassment and was a misuse of process, particularly in a digital age where remote means of communication are widely available.

The petitioner was clear in expressing his readiness to cooperate fully with the investigation but sought permission to do so through video conferencing, which would balance the requirement of law with protection from unnecessary inconvenience.

On notice being issued, the State, represented by Additional Standing Counsel Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, assisted by Advocate Mr. Alok Sharma and Sub-Inspector M.L. Meena of Police Station Vasant Kunj South, accepted the position that the petitioner could be permitted to join the investigation remotely, provided he continued to extend cooperation.

The State did not oppose the relief sought and confirmed that the Investigating Officer would be able to carry forward the investigation without impediment if statements were recorded through video conferencing.

The Court after considering the submissions of both sides, observed that the petitioner had already complied with prior directions by appearing thrice in person, each time travelling from Kolkata to Delhi. It was held that in the given circumstances, further insistence on his physical presence would be unreasonable.

The order records that the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to join any further investigation through video conferencing, noting that the repeated travel requirement despite prior cooperation was unjustified.

The Court, however, exercised caution in clarifying that the order must not be construed in a manner that would curtail the legitimate powers of the Investigating Officer.

The judgment records that the direction for video conferencing was granted without prejudice to the authority of the Investigating Officer to carry forward the intended investigation in accordance with law.

The ruling carries significance in highlighting the judiciary's willingness to adopt technology as a legitimate tool in investigative processes, particularly where cooperation is already evident and where repeated procedural demands may verge on harassment.

It reaffirms the balance that courts seek to maintain between ensuring the smooth progress of investigation and protecting individuals from undue hardship arising from repeated summons. In an era where digital technology has become central to communication and judicial functioning, the decision reflects a recognition that physical presence is not always indispensable if cooperation and accountability are preserved.

The judgment also underscores a broader principle of criminal procedure that the power to summon must be exercised reasonably and proportionately.

Where a person has demonstrated consistent cooperation, as in this case by appearing multiple times across states, courts may intervene to prevent abuse of process by insisting on physical appearances that serve no material purpose. 

Thus, the Court's order represents an important step in aligning investigative practice with modern tools, ensuring both fairness to individuals and effectiveness in legal proceedings. It acknowledges that while the investigative agencies retain their authority, procedural safeguards must operate to prevent harassment under the guise of compliance.

Case Title: Kushal Agarwal v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Bench: Justice Arun Monga

Date of Order: September 15, 2025