Elvish Yadav And ORS v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17971-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.05.2024 Elvish Yadav and ors.

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and anr.

...Respondent (s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- 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.

*** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 08.03.2024 Sector 53, District Gurugram 147, 149, 323 and 506 of IPC 1.

The petitioners, arraigned as accused in the above-captioned FIR, have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person. 2.

It shall be appropriate to extract the relevant part of the FIR captioned above, from the copy annexed with this petition, and it would read as under: Subject: Complaint for Assault and Threat to life by Elvish Yadav. Sir/Madam. I, Sagar Thakur, also known Maxtern, residing at KH no. 159 Gali no. 5/2, Samta Vihar, Mukandpur, Delhi 110042, would like to bring your attention a grave incident of assault and threat to my life perpetrated by Mr. Elvish Yadav, which necessitates immediate legal action. I am a well-known content creator specializing in gaming entertainment, actively producing content on you tube since 2017. With over 1.6 million subscribers on youtube, and 850,000 followers

on instagram and 240,000 followers on X (formerly twitter). I have garnered recognition and accolades in the gaming community for my entertainmentbased content. Elvish Yadav is also a content creator and I know him since 2021. In the last few months, Elvish Fan Pages spreaded hate and propaganda which made me distressed and consulted an NGO for counseling. I was asked by Elvish Yadav to meet but I thought it was about verbal discussion. When he came to the store, he and his 8-10 goons, who were drunk started beating me and started using abusive language. Elvish Yadav tried to break my spine so that I will become physically disabled. All 8-10 people came at 12:30 AM and on 8th March 2024, Elvish Yadav before leaving threatened me to kill me and I was almost unconscious. I request to investigate this matter and the action according to law under culpable homicide of section IPC 308 307. I want my medical examination to be conducted through the police. 3.

During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the accused and the aggrieved person(s) have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2. The compromise reads as follows: "This DEED OF SETTLEMENT is executed on 06th day of April, at Gurugram by and between:

Sagar Thakur son of Umesh Thakur resident of KH-159, Gali no. 5/2, Samta Vihar Mukandpur, Delhi, North West Delhi, Delhi-110042.

(Hereinafter collectively referred to as the "First Party") And 1.

Elvish Yadav son of Ramavtar Yadav resident of Village Wazirabad, Gurugram.

2.

Lovekesh Kataria son of Inderjit Kataria resident of House no. 71-C, Palam Vihar Road, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, Gurugram, Haryana-122001.

3.

Ajay son of Rajbir Singh resident of Village-Puthi Saman (60), Hisar, Haryana-125042.

4.

Rustam son of Abdul Hai, Mandhata, Belkhari, P.O. Uri ka Dih, District Pratapgarh, U.P.-230402.

(Hereinafter referred to as the "Second Party"). Whereas under complete misconception and instigation, the First Party i.e. Sargar Thakur @ Maxtern has lodged a Criminal case bearing FIR No. 68 dated 08.03.2024, under section 147/149/323/506 IPC at Police Station Sector-53, Gurugram against the second party. However, due to the intervention of the respectable members of the society both the parties have resolved all the disputes inter-se between them to avoid further bitter litigation and to maintain peace and harmony. Accordingly, both the parties have mutually agreed to settle the modalities by way of present agreement.

BASIC AGREEMENT:

Finally, after the complete discussions, both the parties without

any influences, force, pressure, coercion or threat whatsoever have settled the disputes permanently but under the following terms and conditions which both the parties undertake to comply: - a.

That, the first party declares that no injury whatsoever has been caused to him by the second party and they have been implicated on basis of hearsay facts, mistaken perception of facts and instigation.

b.

The first party declares that the persons named as second party are completely innocent. The first party has no grievance, doubt or suspicion upon Elvish, Lovekesh, Ajay and Rustam.

c.

That, the footage being played and being claimed to be of incident is incorrect and is beyond authentication. d.

That, the first party has no objection if the present case is cancelled or quashed by the Honorable Court of law or by any other lawful authority.

e.

That, both the parties have willingly executed the present compromise deed to prevent false implication of innocent. The compromise deed has been executed beyond any influence, coercion, threat or compromise.

f.

That, the contents of the compromise deed are understood vernacularly by the parties and they have signed/attested it after understanding all the averments. g.

That, it has been also amicably agreed between both the parties that the both the parties would get the aforesaid FIR quashed from the Honorable High Courts in the light of the present compromise and to avoid bitter litigation. h.

It is also agreed that first party will provide each and every possible help regarding favorable decision or quashing of the aforesaid in case lodged against the Second party & will not file any other criminal/civil matters against each other regarding the dispute in question.

i.

Moreover, both the parties will have no objection if they have to give their statements or undertaking or affidavit before any competent authority or in court of law regarding the present compromise after transfer of the properties. j.

That, the second party also declares that they will not initiate any action against the first party regarding the present case.

k.

That, the both the parties undertake that they will remain bound by the terms of the present compromise & the second party also undertakes not to step away from the terms of the present compromise deed. If the any of the parties deviates from the terms & conditions the defaulting party shall be liable for strict legal action.

That this Agreement shall be signed in duplicate and both the parties shall have one copy each of the same

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement on the date, month and year first above written in the presence of witnesses.

(First Party) (Second Party) Sagar Thakur X X X 1.

Elvish Yadav X X X 2.

Lovekesh Kataria X X 3.

Ajay X X X 4.

Rustam X X X 4.

After that, the petitioner(s) came up before this Court to quash the FIR, impleading the aggrieved person(s) as respondent no. 2. 5.

Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 15.04.2024, the aggrieved person, Sagar Thakur (R-2), appeared before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gurugram, Haryana, and testified that there would be no objection if the Court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned Court's report dated 09.05.2024, the parties consented to quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat. ANALYSIS & REASONING:

6.

Despite the severe opposition of the State's counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: - a) 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.

b) A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means.

c) The aggrieved person has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings.

d) There is no objection from the private respondent in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed.

e) In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy.

f) The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness.

g) 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. h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, community, and society. i) The exercise of the inherent power for quashing FIR and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice. 7.

In the present case, the offences under sections 147 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) are not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 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.

8.

In Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [13]. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Indian Penal Code is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code on the other.

While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are noncompoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution.

The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified.

in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.

9.

In Parbatbhai Aahir v State of Gujarat, 2017:INSC:1003 [Para 15], (2017) 9 SCC 641, a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, laid down the broad principles for quashing of FIR, which are reproduced as follows: - [16]. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarized in the following propositions: 16 (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

16 (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16 (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

16 (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

16 (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; 16 (vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though

the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

16 (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

16 (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

16 (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16 (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

10.

In Ramgopal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr.A 1489 of 2012, decided on 29.09.2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [11]. True it is that offences which are 'non-compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been consciously kept out as noncompoundable. 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.

[12]. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are noncompoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.

[13]. It appears to us those criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck postconviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence.

The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh &Ors. vs. State of Punjab &Ors. [(2014) 6 SCC 466, 29], and Laxmi Narayan [(2019) 5 SCC 688, 15].

[14]. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed between two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a 'settlement' through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that "let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided." 11.

In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble 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.

12.

As per the FIR, petitioner-Elvish Yadav and respondent no.2 Sagar Thakur assert themselves as social influencers and content creators on YouTube, Instagram, and 'X'

(formerly Twitter). 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 behavior.

13.

It has been alleged in the FIR that Elvish Yadav, along with his accomplices (petitioners), met Sagar Thakur, complainant-respondent no.2, in a drunken and inebriated condition and started beating him and hurled abuses at him. Although Sagar Thakur has made a statement before Judicial Magistrate that he has settled the matter with Elvish Yadav and his accomplices, this Court cannot lose sight of the 'influence' these social media influencers and content creators have on the malleable minds of the youth of our country. In the compromise (Annexure P-2), the petitioners have tried to portray themselves to be innocent, and so has respondent no.2. The FIR portrays that the motive for violence was some dispute regarding popularity and content creation, in which allegations were leveled 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 misdemeanor 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.

14.

Without commenting on the story of compromise, this Court finds 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. If they engage in such behavior, the State of Haryana may apply to this Court for recalling of this order and for restoration of the FIR captioned above. 15.

In the light of the judicial precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise, placement of parties, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise deed and its objectives point towards its acceptance, subject to the compliance of the conditions mentioned above.

16.

In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018-INSC1039 [Para 47], 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stand vitiated."

17.

Considering the entire facts, compromise, and in the light of the abovementioned judicial precedents, I believe that continuing these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the Court invokes the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner(s) subject to the condition(s) imposed in paragraph 13 of this judgment above. The bail bonds of the petitioners are accordingly discharged.

Petition allowed in the terms mentioned above. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE May 28, 2024 AK/Jyoti Sharma/Jyoti-II/anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

YES