The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the conviction and sentence of actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav and his wife, Radha Rajpal Yadav, in multiple cheque dishonour cases linked to a financial dispute with Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. 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 either the trial court or the Sessions Court.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the petitioners had repeatedly failed to fulfil the commitments they made despite being granted exceptional leniency by the Court over several years.While reviewing Rajpal Yadav’s conduct during the proceedings, the High Court noted that the predecessor Bench had indicated at the very first hearing that it was not inclined to interfere with his conviction on merits. However, his sentence was suspended after he expressed a willingness to settle the matter amicably with the complainant.The judgment records that Yadav repeatedly sought additional time to arrange the funds and, both personally and through his senior counsel, assured the Court on multiple occasions that he would repay the complainant. Trusting these assurances, the Court granted repeated adjournments and continued to suspend his sentence.Despite receiving several opportunities over an extended period, the actor failed to honour the undertakings given before the Court. This eventually led to directions for him to surrender before the jail authorities. Although he was granted further relief after making certain payments, the parties were ultimately unable to arrive at a final settlement.According to the High 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.”Reacting to the statement, Justice Sharma observed that while a litigant is free to choose imprisonment over repayment, such a decision cannot override the law or nullify commitments made before a court.The Court remarked according to ANI, “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.“The High Court also refused Yadav’s request for release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, holding that his conduct did not warrant the discretionary relief available under the law.Separately, the Court rejected the couple’s plea seeking condonation of a delay of more than five years in filing criminal revision petitions challenging their conviction. Justice Sharma found their explanation—that they believed the conviction had already been challenged—to be unsupported by the record and lacking credibility.The Court further held that attributing the delay solely to incorrect legal advice from previous counsel could not be treated as sufficient cause for condoning such an extraordinary delay.Finding no bona fide justification, the High Court dismissed all applications seeking condonation of delay and, as a consequence, rejected the connected criminal revision petitions, thereby affirming the Sessions Court’s January 21, 2019 judgment.The Court also examined the challenge to the Sessions Court’s May 29, 2024 order, which had upheld the sentence in the cheque bounce cases while modifying the sentencing order. After considering the issues raised by the petitioners, the High Court concluded that neither the conviction nor the sentence suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference under its inherent jurisdiction.While denying relief, the Court noted that the petitioners had deposited an additional Rs 2.25 crore during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, and the amount had already been released to the complainant company.The dispute stems from agreements executed for financing the film ‘Ata Pata Lapata’. Court records show that Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. had advanced funds to Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Ltd., with Rajpal Yadav and his wife acting as guarantors.After repeated repayment defaults and the dishonour of several post-dated cheques issued under successive supplementary agreements, Murli Projects initiated seven complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Those proceedings ultimately resulted in the conviction that has now been upheld by the Delhi High Court.