New Delhi [India], July 10 (ANI): In a strongly worded judgment, the Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the conviction and sentence of Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav and his wife Radha Rajpal Yadav in multiple cheque dishonour cases arising out of a financial dispute with Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Dismissing a batch of 21 petitions filed by the couple, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to interfere with the findings of the trial court and the Sessions Court, observing that the petitioners had repeatedly failed to honour their commitments despite receiving extraordinary indulgence from the Court over several years.
The Court made strong observations while examining Rajpal Yadav’s conduct during the proceedings. It noted that even though the predecessor Bench had indicated on the very first hearing that it was not inclined to interfere with the conviction on the merits, the Court nevertheless suspended his sentence after he expressed willingness to amicably settle the dispute with the complainant.
According to the judgment, Rajpal Yadav repeatedly sought time to arrange funds and, both personally and through his senior counsel, assured the Court on several occasions that he was bound to repay the complainant. Relying on these assurances, the Court granted him repeated adjournments and extended protection by suspending his sentence.
However, the Court found that despite multiple opportunities spread over a considerable period, Yadav failed to honour the undertakings furnished before the Court, forcing it to eventually direct him to surrender before the jail authorities. Although further indulgence was later shown after certain payments were made, no final settlement could ultimately be reached.
The High Court recorded that matters reached a decisive point when, at the conclusion of the hearing, Rajpal Yadav categorically informed the Court that he “was not willing to pay any amount to the complainant and would rather go to jail five times than return the money.”
Referring to this statement, Justice Sharma observed that while a litigant may choose imprisonment over repayment, such a choice cannot alter the operation of law or erase solemn commitments made before a court.
The Court remarked, “Needless to state that in case a litigant wishes to choose the path of imprisonment rather than abiding by multiple undertakings given by him in the Court, it is entirely his choice. Law is not a script that can be rewritten at the will of an actor, nor can legal positions be altered with every change of strategy… Courts adjudicate on the basis of settled legal principles and expect from every litigant fairness and respect for the judicial process.”
Holding that such conduct did not deserve equitable consideration, the Court rejected Yadav’s plea seeking release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, observing that he was not entitled to the discretionary benefit of probation in the facts of the case.
The High Court also rejected the petitioners’ attempt to revive challenges against their conviction by seeking condonation of more than five years’ delay in filing criminal revision petitions.
Justice Sharma observed that the explanation that the petitioners had remained under the impression that their conviction had already been challenged was neither borne out from the record nor inspired confidence.
The Court further held that blaming the delay entirely on incorrect legal advice from previous counsel did not constitute sufficient cause for condoning such an inordinate delay.
Finding the explanation devoid of bona fides, the Court dismissed all applications seeking condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the connected criminal revision petitions, thereby affirming the Sessions Court judgment dated January 21, 2019.
The High Court thereafter examined the challenge to the Sessions Court’s judgment dated May 29, 2024, which had upheld the sentence awarded in the cheque bounce cases and modified the order on sentence. After analysing the legal issues raised by the petitioners, the Court held that there was no infirmity either in the conviction or in the sentence warranting interference under its inherent jurisdiction.
While refusing relief, the Court noted that during the pendency of the petitions before the High Court, the petitioners had deposited an additional sum of Rs 2.25 crore, which had already been released in favour of the complainant company.
The litigation traces its origin to agreements executed in connection with the financing of the film ‘Ata Pata Lapata’. According to the record, Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. had advanced funds to Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Ltd., while Rajpal Yadav and his wife stood as guarantors.
Following repeated defaults in repayment and dishonour of several post-dated cheques issued under successive supplementary agreements, Murli Projects initiated seven complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, culminating in the conviction that now stands affirmed by the Delhi High Court. (ANI)
Related reading
