The: Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the conviction and sentence of actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav and his wife, Radha Rajpal Yadavin several dishonor check 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 the trial court or the Sessions Court.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the petitioners have repeatedly failed to fulfill the commitments they have made despite the Court granting them extraordinary permission over the years.While reviewing Rajpal Yadav’s conduct during the proceedings, the High Court noted that the previous Bench had stated in the earlier 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 plaintiff.The judgment recorded that Yadav repeatedly sought more time to arrange the funds and, personally and through his senior counsel, assured the Court several times that he would pay the complainant. Relying on these assurances, the Court granted repeated adjournments and continued the suspension of his sentence.Despite receiving many opportunities for a long time, the actor failed to honor the assignments given before the Court. This eventually led to directions for him to surrender before the prison authorities. Although he was given more relief after making some payments, the parties were ultimately 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 is not ready 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 payment, such a decision does not violate the law or nullify the commitments made before the court.The Court said according to ANI, “It goes without saying that if a litigant wants to choose the path of imprisonment rather than complying with the many tasks given to him by the Court, this is all his choice. The law is not a script that can be rewritten at the will of an actor, nor can legal positions change with each change of strategy… Courts decide based on settled legal principles and expect from each litigant fairness and respect for the judicial process.“The High Court also rejected Yadav’s plea for release from 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 request for condonation of delay of more than five years in filing criminal revision petitions challenging their convictions. Justice Sharma found their explanation—that they believed the conviction had been challenged—unsupported by the record and lacking credibility.The Court added that the allegation of delay due to wrong legal advice from the former lawyer cannot be considered as sufficient reason to condone such extraordinary delay.Finding that there was no bona fide justification, the High Court dismissed all the applications seeking condonation of delay and, as a result, rejected the connected criminal revision petitions, thus affirming the judgment of the Sessions Court on January 21, 2019.The Court also examined the challenge to the order of the Sessions Court on May 29, 2024, which upheld the sentence in the check 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 entailing interference under its inherent jurisdiction.While denying the 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 the agreements executed for the financing of 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.Following repeated payment defaults and the dishonor of several post-dated checks 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 which is now upheld by the Delhi High Court.