In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the FIR filed against Elvish Yadav in the alleged snake venom case linked to a rave party in Noida.
The Court ruled that the criminal proceedings could not be sustained in law based on the limited legal issues examined.
The decision brings major relief to the YouTuber and Bigg Boss OTT 2 winner, who was arrested in March 2024 following allegations of involvement in the use of snake venom at a party held in November 2023.
Court Examines Legal Validity of Charges
A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh focused on two primary legal aspects: the applicability of provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, and the procedural validity under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
The Court observed that the substance allegedly recovered from a co-accused was not listed under the NDPS Act’s schedule. It further noted that no recovery was made directly from Yadav, weakening the prosecution’s case.
Procedural Lapse Under Wildlife Law Highlighted
Regarding the Wildlife (Protection) Act, the Bench pointed out that Section 55 mandates that prosecution must begin through a complaint filed by an authorised officer. Since the case was initiated through an FIR instead, the Court held that the proceedings were not legally maintainable.
The Bench also noted that related offences under the Indian Penal Code were not independently established, as they stemmed from an earlier complaint that had already been closed.
Liberty Granted for Fresh Proceedings
While quashing the FIR, the Court granted liberty to the competent authority to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the law, if deemed necessary. This includes filing a proper complaint under relevant provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
Earlier Observations by the Court
During earlier hearings, the Court had expressed concern over the alleged misuse of animals, noting that such actions by public figures could send a negative message to society. The Bench had questioned whether handling protected wildlife could be justified under any circumstances.
Conclusion: Legal Relief with Scope for Further Action
The ruling underscores the importance of procedural compliance and statutory interpretation in criminal cases. While Elvish Yadav has received immediate relief, the possibility of fresh legal action remains open, depending on further investigation and proper filing by authorities.
