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.
