Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes Assault FIR Against Elvish Yadav With Condition To Stop Promoting Violence, Substance Abuse On Social Media

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR lodged against YouTuber Elvish Yadav for allegedly assaulting and threatening a social media influencer Sagar Thakur, subject to the condition that he and "his accomplices" should refrain from depicting or promoting violence and substance abuse on social media.

Justice Anoop Chitkara noted, "The FIR portrays that the motive for violence was some dispute regarding popularity and content creation in which allegations were levelled against Elvish Yadav and his accomplices. To ensure that similar violent acts are not repeated in the future, that impressionable followers do not get influenced of the misdemeanour exhibited by the accused persons. and that the accused are not under the mistaken belief that such instances are taken lightly by the legal system, this Court proposes to quash the FIR in question but with the imposition of certain condition."

The Court also highlighted that, while violence portrayed in the media may seem cool or entertaining, attracting a wide audience across platforms. Such content often serves to further a narrative or garner viewership and associated popularity, influencing societal perceptions detrimentally. illustrating a story and promoting hero culture.

"Such actual use of violence in a society cannot be accepted and needs to be condemned. Media influencers with a considerable audience must be sensitized to the message they impart through their actions to their susceptible followers and exhibit socially responsible behaviour," it added.

Elvish Yadav and other alleged accomplices had filed a plea for quashing an FIR lodged under Sections 147 (Punishment for rioting), 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of common object), 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) based on the compromise with the aggrieved, Sagar Thakur.

Thakur stated to be a "well-known content creator" had alleged that Elvish Yadav along with others had beaten him brutally and threatened to kill him.

Elvish submitted that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, he and other accused persons have compromised the matter with Thakur.

Thakur appeared before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gurugram, Haryana, and testified that there would be no objection if the Court quashed this FIR and consequent proceedings.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that "the accused and the private respondent have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court."

In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude harms the social and moral fabric of the society or involves matters concerning public policy, the Court added.

The Court also observed that "the rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness and there is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, or professional offender, and this Court proposes to caution the petitioners as mentioned in the later part of this order."

The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, community, and society, it added.

However, the judge noted that in the present case, the offences under sections 147 and 149 of the IPC are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, subject to the compliance of directions by the petitioners, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.

Reliance was placed on Apex Court's decision in Ramgopal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [Cr.A 1489 of 2012] to underscore, "Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice."

The Court referred to Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, [(1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642], wherein the Supreme Court observed that "the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion."

Without commenting on the story of compromise, the Court found "it appropriate to quash the FIR captioned above subject to the condition that the petitioners, Elvish Yadav and his accomplices, namely Lovekesh Kataria, Ajay, and Rustam, refrain from depicting or promoting violence and substance abuse in any of their social media posts or content."

Stating that "continuing these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever", the Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings subject to the above conditions.

Elvish Yadav and ors. v. State of Haryana and anr.

Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate with Ms. Priyanka Soni, Advocate, Mr. Mohak Arora, Advocate and Ms. Shanika Khurmi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. AG, Haryana.

Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate with Mr. S.K. Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.2. 

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 198

Click here to read/download the order