No Absolute Right To Demand Video Conference Interrogation: Madhya Pradesh HC

An accused or suspect has no absolute or enforceable right under the law to dictate investigation methods or insist that police record their statement exclusively through video conferencing from abroad. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh reaffirmed that the choice of investigative procedures remains strictly within the domain of the investigating agency.

A single-judge bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi dismissed a writ petition filed by an NRI businessman residing in Dubai who sought directions to restrain the police from compelling his personal appearance and to record his statement via electronic means.

The Court held that while modern procedural codes recognize electronic modes, they do not create an enforceable right for suspects to avoid physical attendance. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Though the BNSS, 2023 recognizes the use of audio-video electronic means in appropriate cases, the provisions relied upon by the petitioner cannot be construed as conferring an absolute and enforceable right upon every person to insist that examination during investigation must invariably be conducted only through video conferencing. The decision regarding the manner of investigation, subject to statutory safeguards and judicial review in exceptional cases, remains within the domain of the investigating agency."

On the prayer for quashing the FIR and restraining coercive action, the Court noted that the investigation disclosed cognizable offences and was actively underway. The Court has following directions:

"The petitioner remains at liberty to place all relevant material before the investigating officer and to seek such accommodation as may be permissible under law; however, no mandamus can be issued directing the investigating agency to conduct the investigation in the specific manner sought by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed."

Background

The petitioner, an Indian citizen residing in Dubai for eight years, was issued notices under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Police Station Lordganj, Jabalpur, in connection with an FIR registered for offences under Section 4-A of the Gambling Act read with Sections 109 and 34 of the IPC. Although his name was not explicitly in the FIR, notices required his appearance. He replied through counsel, offering to cooperate via video conferencing, citing the proviso to Section 180(3) and Section 530 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

When police insisted on his personal presence, he filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the FIR, direct investigation completion, and allow statement recording via electronic means, citing Sunita Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. ( "Cr.A. No.3924/2023": 2023 CaseBase(PAT) 177) and Satish Sanpal vs. Bureau of Immigration. The State opposed, arguing that an accused cannot dictate investigation methods and no exceptional grounds were shown under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to quash the FIR.

Rejecting the arguments, the High Court held that no ground for quashing or issuing a mandamus was established, dismissing the petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No. 27644 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:61150
Case Title: SATISH SANPAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Vipin Yadav - Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Shri B.D. Singh - Addl. Advocate General

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 9854