New Delhi, March 19 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed criminal proceedings against YouTuber and reality show winner Elvish Yadav in a case involving the procurement and use of snake venom at rave parties in Noida and the NCR, holding that the invocation of provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the Wildlife (Protection) Act was not legally sustainable.

A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh allowed a special leave petition (SLP) filed by Elvish Yadav and set aside the Allahabad High Court order that had refused to quash the criminal case pending before a Gautam Buddha Nagar court.

The case arises out of an FIR registered in November 2023 at Sector 49 police station in Noida, based on a complaint by animal rights organisation People for Animals (PFA) alleging procurement and use of snake venom at rave parties in the National Capital Region (NCR).

Clarifying that it had confined its consideration to specific legal questions and had not examined the allegations on merits, the Justice Sundresh-led Bench framed two core issues — the applicability of Section 2(23) of the NDPS Act and the validity of proceedings under Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act.

After examining the submissions, the apex court held that the substance allegedly recovered from a co-accused did not fall within the statutory schedule of psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act.

“Insofar as the issue pertaining to Section 2(23) of the NDPS Act is concerned, admittedly, what is recovered from the co-accused cannot come within the purview of psychotropic substances found in the schedule,” the Justice Sundresh-led Bench observed.

It further recorded that no recovery had been made from Elvish Yadav himself and that the allegations against him were limited to placing orders through an associate.

Turning to the proceedings under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, the Justice Sundresh-led Bench examined the requirement under Section 55, which mandates that prosecution can be initiated only upon a complaint filed by an authorised officer.

The top court noted that the complaint in the present case had been filed by an individual associated with an animal welfare organisation, and not by a competent authority under the statute.

“We find that Section 55 of the Act requires a complaint by an authorised authority,” the Justice Sundresh-led Bench said, holding that the FIR, in its present form, was not maintainable in law.

At the same time, the Supreme Court clarified that it was not granting a clean chit to Yadav and that the allegations had not been examined on merits.

It granted liberty to the competent authority to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, including by filing a proper complaint under Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had stayed the trial court proceedings against Yadav while issuing notice on his SLP challenging the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash the case at the pre-trial stage.

–IANS

pds/dpb