New Delhi:
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed a batch of 21 petitions filed by the couple and refused to interfere with the findings of the trial court and the Sessions Court. The Court sentenced Rajpal Yadav to three months of simple imprisonment in each of the seven cheque bounce cases, with all sentences to run concurrently.
A fine of Rs 1.05 crore has been imposed in each case. Of this, Rs 1.0475 crore is to be paid to the complainant, while Rs 25,000 will go to the State. The Court also directed that Rs 2.25 crore already deposited by Yadav during the pendency of the proceedings be adjusted in the final settlement amount.
The cases stem from agreements linked to the financing of the film Ata Pata Lapata. According to the record, Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. had advanced funds to Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Ltd., while Rajpal Yadav and his wife stood as guarantors. Following repeated defaults and the dishonour of several post-dated cheques issued under supplementary agreements, the company initiated seven complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
In a strongly worded judgment, the High Court noted that Yadav had been granted repeated opportunities to settle the matter and clear his dues. The Court said his sentence had earlier been suspended after he expressed willingness to amicably resolve the dispute, but he failed to honour the undertakings given before the Court despite several adjournments and extensions of protection.
The Court recorded that the matter reached a decisive point when, at the conclusion of the hearing, Yadav told 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 the statement, Justice Sharma observed that while a litigant may choose imprisonment over repayment, such a choice cannot override the law or erase solemn commitments made before a court.
“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,” the Court said, adding that courts decide matters on settled legal principles and expect fairness and respect for the judicial process.
The High Court also rejected Yadav’s plea seeking release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, holding that his conduct did not merit discretionary relief.
It further refused to condone a delay of more than five years in filing criminal revision petitions against the conviction. The Court held that the explanation that the petitioners believed their conviction had already been challenged was not supported by the record and did not inspire confidence.
With this, the High Court dismissed all connected petitions and affirmed the Sessions Court’s orders in the cheque dishonour cases.
