The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the conviction and sentence of actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav and his wife, Radha Rajpal Yadavin multiple check dishonor cases relating 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 had repeatedly defaulted on their commitments despite the Court granting them exceptional leniency for several years.While reviewing the conduct of Rajpal Yadav during the proceedings, the High Court noted that the predecessor Bench had indicated in the first instance that it was not prepared 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 requested additional time to arrange the funds and, both personally and through his lead counsel, assured the Court on several occasions that he would pay the complainant. Relying on these assurances, the Court granted repeated adjournments and continued to suspend his sentence.Despite receiving several opportunities over a prolonged period, the actor failed to fulfill the commitments made before the Court. This eventually led to directions for him to surrender to prison authorities. Although he was granted further relief after making certain 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 was “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 restitution, such a decision cannot override the law or nullify commitments made before a court.The Court remarked, according to ANI, “It goes without saying that in case a litigant wishes to choose the path of imprisonment instead of fulfilling the multiple undertakings made by him in the Court, it is entirely his choice. Law is not a script that can be rewritten at the whim of an actor, nor can legal positions be altered with every change of strategy…Courts judge on the basis of established legal principles and expect from each litigant fairness and respect for the judicial process.“The High Court also rejected Yadav’s application for parole under the Parole of Offenders Act, finding that his conduct did not justify the discretionary relief available under the law.Separately, the Court rejected the couple’s petition seeking condonation of a delay of more than five years in filing criminal review petitions challenging their conviction. Justice Sharma found their explanation, that they believed the conviction had already been challenged, was not supported by the record and lacked credibility.The Court further held that attributing the delay solely to the incorrect legal advice of a previous solicitor could not be considered sufficient cause to approve such an extraordinary delay.Finding no bona fide justification, the High Court dismissed all the applications seeking condonation of delay and accordingly dismissed the linked criminal review petitions, thereby upholding the judgment of the Sessions Court dated 21 January 2019.The Court also considered the challenge to the order of the Sessions Court dated May 29, 2024, which had upheld the judgment in the check bounce cases while modifying the order of conviction. After considering the issues raised by the petitioners, the High Court concluded that neither the conviction nor the sentence suffered from any legal invalidity warranting interference with its inherent jurisdiction.While denying the relief, the High Court noted that the petitioners had deposited an additional Rs 2.25 crore during the proceedings before the High Court, and the amount had already been released to the complainant company.The conflict arises from the agreements signed 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.After repeated defaults and dishonoring of several subsequent checks issued under successive supplementary agreements, Murli Projects initiated seven complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. These proceedings eventually resulted in the conviction which has now been upheld by the Delhi High Court.