Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Elvish Yadav Over Snake Venom Allegations

The Supreme Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against YouTuber Elvish Yadav regarding allegations of using snake venom in videos and organizing rave parties.

The Court set aside the earlier order of the Allahabad High Court and ruled that the prosecution failed to adhere to mandatory legal and statutory requirements under the NDPS and Wildlife Protection Acts.

The case involves allegations that Yadav misused snakes and snake venom in his videos and played a role in organizing rave parties where prohibited substances and venom were allegedly supplied.

The Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh granted leave and ordered, "We will now address the two legal issues raised. Insofar as the IPC offences are concerned, they were the subject matter of an earlier complaint and cannot form part of the present proceedings. Regarding the issue pertaining to Section 2(23) of the NDPS Act, it is admitted that the substance recovered from the co-accused does not come within the purview of a psychotropic substance, as it is not found in the Schedule. Nothing more needs to be said on that point...On the second issue, we find that under Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act, a private complaint by a competent authority is a mandatory requirement. This issue has been considered by this Court time and again. In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan (1988), in Jeevan Kumar Raut v. CBI (2009), and in the recent judgment of N.H. John, this Court has reiterated the necessity of following such statutory mandates."

The Court held, "Taking note of these decisions, it is clear that the FIR registered cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. For these reasons, we are not going to delve further into the other issues raised. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings stand quashed...However, we do not wish to leave the matter at this stage without addressing the factual allegations. While we quash the current proceedings, we grant liberty to the competent authority to press into service Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act in accordance with the law."

Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta appeared for Yadav.

The Court ordered, "Leave Granted. This Special Leave Petition (SLP) seeks to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellant, including the charge sheet and subsequent proceedings, punishable under Sections 284, 289, and 120B of the IPC, along with the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act and other relevant sections. Regarding Sections 284 and 289, these charges are based on the same vlog; they have been clubbed here as the alleged cruelty to animals was documented in that specific vlog. This is in conjunction with Sections 9, 39, 48A, 49, 50, and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, as noted in the available records...Furthermore, Sections 22 and 27 of the NDPS Act have been invoked. The present appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the High Court. The High Court did not delve into these specific aspects, focusing instead on the seriousness of the offences."

It also said, "Arguments have been heard at length. We are inclined to examine only two legal issues raised. The first issue concerns the scope and applicability of Section 2, sub-clause (23) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The second issue pertains to Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act. Regarding these two issues, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the offense attributed under the NDPS Act is not maintainable as a psychotropic substance...Under Section 2(23), the substance allegedly recovered from the co-accused does not find a place in the Schedule of the Act. This submission is made notwithstanding the fact that no recovery was made from the appellant himself. The charge against him is to the effect that he placed orders through his friends with the co-accused, an allegation based solely on disclosure statements."

The Court on August 6, 2025, had granted an interim stay on trial court proceedings against YouTuber and social media influencer Elvish Yadav. The plea challenged the decision by the Allahabad High Court, which had previously refused to quash the chargesheet and summoning orders against Yadav.

Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, representing Yadav, argued that the charges under the NDPS Act (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act) are legally unsustainable and that there has been a significant failure to comply with statutory procedures during the investigation.

"Regarding the second submission, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act can only be pressed into service through a private complaint filed by an authorized officer...It is further submitted that the offences under the Indian Penal Code are not made out as they were the subject matter of an earlier complaint, FIR No. 146 of 2024, regarding the same vlog in Badshahpur, District Gurgaon, under the State of Haryana. That complaint was filed by the brother of the present complainant, who is also a witness in this matter. That earlier complaint was closed via a negative report filed by the investigating agency. The very same allegations have been factored into the present case to invoke Sections 284, 289, and 120B of the IPC", the Court ordered.

The Court observed that the substances allegedly recovered from the co-accused were not listed in the official Schedule of the Act. The bench noted that since the recovered material did not fall within the legal purview of the NDPS Act, the charges were unsustainable. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that no recovery was made directly from Yadav, and the charge sheet relied on indirect allegations of him placing orders through friends.

"Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State submitted that there is sufficient material to implicate the appellant. Although the substance does not appear in the Schedule, they argue that given the materials indicated in the report, there is no need for interference. Even if this Court finds a procedural violation, they contend it should not be construed as a "clean chit" for the appellant. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant further submitted that while the appellant's status is not in dispute, this complaint is based on a different footing regarding a private organization. The appellant disputes the receipt of certain notices and the validity of the documents relied upon by the other side", it was recorded.

On the second major legal issue, the bench ruled that the proceedings violated Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act. This section mandates that a court can only take cognizance of an offence under the Act through a private complaint filed by an authorized officer or competent authority. The Court found that the registration of an FIR in this context was procedurally improper, reiterating established judicial precedents that such cases cannot be sustained without following the specific "complaint" mechanism prescribed by the law.

While the Supreme Court quashed the current proceedings and the FIR, it clarified that it did not delve into the underlying facts or the merits of the allegations themselves. Consequently, the bench granted liberty to the competent authorities to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act, provided they follow the correct legal procedure by filing a formal private complaint.

Background

Before the Allahabad High Court, an application under section 528 BNSS was preferred to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order passed by the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar as well as the entire proceedings under sections 9, 39, 48A, 49, 50 & 51 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and sections 284, 289, 120B I.P.C. and sections 8, 22, 29, 30 & 32 of NDPS Act, P.S. Sector-49 Noida, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar, pending before learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar.

The High Court rejected the application and said that while the initial F.I.R. focused on wildlife violations, the subsequent investigation revealed more serious implications, leading to charges under the NDPS Act (drug-related offences).

The High Court ruled that the truth of the allegations and the defence’s facts (such as the nature of the snakes or the lack of evidence) are matters to be examined by the Trial Court during a full trial, not at this preliminary stage.

The Court said, "The popularity or position of the accused cannot be basis of extension of protection... each and every person irrespective of his popularity or personality are equal in the eye of law."

Cause Title: Elvish Yadav@ Siddharth vs State of U.P.[SLP(Crl) No. 11480/2025 Diary No. 41238 / 2025]