Social Media Impact Requires Responsible Conduct: Court Quashes FIR Against Alvish Yadav Influencers

High Court quashes FIR based on compromise, imposes conditions on influencers to curb future violence and substance abuse promotion.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a recent judgment delivered by Justice Anoop Chitkara on May 28, 2024, quashed the FIR against YouTube content creator Elvish Yadav and others, citing a compromise between the parties. The court emphasized the principles of reformative justice and the need for societal harmony, while imposing strict conditions on the petitioners to prevent the promotion of violence or substance abuse in their social media content.

The case originated from an FIR filed on March 8, 2024, by Sagar Thakur, also known as Maxtern, against Elvish Yadav and his associates, alleging assault and threats to his life. The FIR, filed under Sections 147, 149, 323, and 506 of the IPC, described a violent encounter where Yadav and his group, allegedly inebriated, attacked Thakur, causing significant distress and physical harm.

Compromise Between Parties: During the criminal proceedings, both parties reached a settlement, formalized in a compromise deed on April 6, 2024. This compromise was corroborated by the statements made by Thakur before the Judicial Magistrate, indicating no coercion or undue influence in reaching the agreement.

Influence of Social Media: Justice Chitkara highlighted the significant impact that social media influencers have on public behavior. “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 behavior,” the court stated. Given the nature of the accusations, the court underscored the importance of ensuring that such incidents do not set a negative precedent for impressionable followers.

The court extensively cited precedents to justify the quashing of the FIR despite the non-compoundable nature of the offenses under IPC Sections 147 and 149. Citing the Supreme Court rulings in Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the court reiterated that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised to quash proceedings when it serves the ends of justice, especially when the likelihood of conviction is remote and continuing the trial would result in unnecessary oppression.

Justice Chitkara remarked, “The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, community, and society.” He further noted, “To ensure that similar violent acts are not repeated in the future, and that impressionable followers do not get influenced by the misdemeanor exhibited by the accused persons, this Court proposes to quash the FIR in question but with the imposition of certain conditions.”

The judgment underscores the High Court’s commitment to reformative justice while addressing the potential societal impact of social media conduct. By imposing conditions on the petitioners to refrain from promoting violence or substance abuse, the court aims to prevent future incidents and promote responsible behavior among influencers. The decision serves as a crucial reminder of the judiciary’s role in balancing justice with societal harmony, particularly in cases involving public figures and their influence on youth.

Date of Decision: May 28, 2024

Elvish Yadav and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another