Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes FIR Against YouTuber Elvish Yadav

Details of the Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the FIR against YouTuber Elvish Yadav, which was filed for allegedly assaulting and threatening fellow social media influencer Sagar Thakur, also known as Maxtern. The court's decision came after both parties reached a compromise.

The FIR, registered under sections 147 (punishment for rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, was dismissed on the condition that Yadav refrains from promoting violence and substance abuse on social media. The court emphasized the need for influencers to act responsibly and avoid content that could negatively impact society.

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 by 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 conditions."

Background

The altercation between Yadav and Maxtern was captured in a viral video, showing Yadav entering a shop with a group of men who then assaulted Thakur. Thakur lodged a complaint with Gurugram police, leading to the registration of the FIR. According to reports, Thakur alleged that Yadav and his followers had beaten him brutally and threatened to kill him. However, during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, both parties reached an amicable settlement.

Court's Observations

The court 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. The court also noted that the rejection of the compromise may lead to ill will and affect the careers and happiness of the involved parties.