this delhi high court Convictions and sentences of actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav and his wife Radha upheld on Friday Rajpal Yadavin multiple cases of check dishonor related to financial disputes at Murli Projects Pvt. In a strongly worded judgment, the court dismissed 21 petitions filed by the couple, ruling that there was no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court or the sessions court.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that despite extraordinary leniency granted by the courts over the years, the petitioner had repeatedly failed to fulfill the promises made by it.Examining Rajpal Yadav’s conduct during the proceedings, the high court noted that the former judge had stated during the first hearing that there was no intention to interfere with his conviction. However, his sentence was suspended after he expressed his willingness to resolve the matter amicably with the complainant.The judgment records that Yadav repeatedly sought more time to arrange funds and repeatedly assured the court, either personally or through his senior counsel, that he would repay the complainant. The court believed these assurances, granted multiple adjournments, and continued probation.Despite being given several opportunities over a long period of time, the actor failed to fulfill his commitment to the court. This ultimately resulted in him being directed to surrender to prison authorities. Although he obtained further relief upon payment of certain sums, the parties were unable to reach a final settlement.According to the High Court, the proceedings reached a turning point when Rajpal Yadav informed the court that he was “unwilling to pay any amount to the complainant and would rather go to jail five times than return the money”.Reacting to this statement, Justice Sharma noted that while a litigant is free to choose between imprisonment or repayment, such a decision cannot override the law or invalidate an undertaking made in court.According to ANI, the court said: “It goes without saying that if the client wishes to opt for imprisonment rather than abide by the various undertakings he made before the court, that is entirely his choice. The law is not a script that can be rewritten at will, nor can the legal position change with every change in strategy…The courts rule based on established legal principles and expect every litigant to be fair and respect the judicial process.“The High Court also rejected Yadav’s request for a suspended release under the Probation of Offenders Act, holding that his conduct did not qualify for discretionary relief under the law.Separately, the court rejected the couple’s request for leniency for delaying more than five years in filing a criminal modification petition challenging their convictions. Judge Sharma found their explanation – that they believed the conviction had been challenged – was not supported by the record and lacked credibility.The Court further held that merely attributing the delay to poor legal advice from the previous counsel could not be considered sufficient reason to condone such an extraordinary delay.The High Court dismissed all applications seeking condonation of delay and accordingly dismissed the related criminal modification application, finding that there was no just cause, thereby upholding the January 21, 2019 judgment of the Sessions Court.The court also examined the challenge to the May 29, 2024 order of the Sessions Court, which upheld the verdict in the check bounce case while modifying the sentencing order. After considering the issues raised by the petitioners, the High Court concluded that there was no legal defect in either the conviction or the sentence which warranted interference with its inherent jurisdiction.The court, while denying the relief, noted that the petitioner had deposited an additional Rs 225 crore during the pendency of the High Court proceedings and the amount had been transferred to the petitioner company.The controversy stems from an agreement signed to finance the film “Ata Pata Lapata.” Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. advanced funds to Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Ltd., with Rajpal Yadav and his wife acting as guarantors, court records show.Murli Projects lodged seven complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act following repeated defaults in repayment and dishonor of several post-dated checks issued under successive supplementary agreements. The proceedings ultimately resulted in the Delhi High Court upholding the conviction.
