The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the conviction and sentence of actor Rajpal Norang Yadav and his wife, Radha Rajpal Yadav, in multiple honor-related cases linked to a financial dispute with Murli Projects Pvt.
Ltd. In a strongly worded ruling, 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 observed that the petitioners had repeatedly failed to fulfill the obligations undertaken by them despite being granted exceptional leniency by the court over several years.While reviewing Rajpal Yadav’s conduct during the proceedings, the Supreme Court noted that the previous bench had indicated in the first hearing that it was not inclined to interfere with his conviction on merits.
However, his sentence was suspended after he expressed his willingness to settle the matter amicably with the complainant.The judgment records that Yadav repeatedly sought additional time to arrange the funds and assured the court, personally and through his senior counsel, on multiple occasions that he would repay the complainant. Relying on these assurances, the court granted repeated postponements and continued to suspend the ruling.
Despite getting many opportunities over a long period, the actor failed to honor the undertakings he made before the court. This ultimately led to instructions for him to surrender before the prison authorities. Although he obtained further relief after paying certain amounts, the parties were ultimately unable to reach a final settlement.According to the Supreme Court, the proceedings reached a turning point when Rajpal Yadav 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”.Responding to the statement, Justice Sharma observed that while a litigant is free to choose imprisonment instead of payment, such a decision cannot overturn the law or nullify the obligations undertaken before the court.“It goes without saying that if a litigant wants to choose the prison route instead of adhering to the multiple undertakings made by him in court, that is entirely his choice,” the court observed according to ANI.
The law is not a text that can be rewritten based on the will of the actor, and legal positions cannot be changed with every change in strategy… Courts rule on the basis of well-established legal principles and expect from every litigant justice and respect for the judicial process.
“The Supreme Court also rejected Yadav’s request to be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, holding that his conduct did not justify the discretionary relief available under the law.Separately, the court rejected the couple’s application to dismiss a delay of more than five years in filing criminal review petitions challenging their conviction. Judge Sharma found that their explanation — that they believed the conviction had already been contested — was not supported by the record and lacked credibility.The court also held that attributing the delay solely to incorrect legal advice from the previous lawyer could not be considered a sufficient reason to condone such extraordinary delay.In the absence of real justification, the Supreme Court dismissed all applications seeking condonation of the delay and, as a result, dismissed the relevant criminal review petitions, thereby affirming the judgment of the Sessions Court of 21 January 2019.The court also considered the appeal against the order of the Sessions Court dated May 29, 2024, which upheld the judgment in the check bounce cases while modifying the adjudication order.
After considering the issues raised by the petitioners, the Supreme Court concluded that neither the conviction nor the sentence suffered from any legal defect that warranted interference with its jurisdiction.While denying relief, the court noted that the petitioners had deposited an additional amount of Rs 2.25 crore while awaiting proceedings before the Supreme Court and the amount had already been handed over to the complainant company.The dispute stems from agreements made to finance the film “Ata Pata Lapata”. Court records show that Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. provided Funds to Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Ltd., with Rajpal Yadav and his wife acting as guarantors.Following repeated defaults and dishonor of several post-dated checks issued under successive supplemental agreements, Murli Projects filed seven complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. These proceedings ultimately resulted in the conviction which has now been upheld by the Delhi High Court.
