Introduction:

The Delhi High Court, in Sh. Rajpal Naurang Yadav & Anr. v. M/s Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., dealt with a batch of petitions arising out of convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav and his wife challenged the sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court. The case stemmed from multiple cheque dishonour complaints filed by the respondent company, M/s Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd., involving substantial monetary liability. While the sentence was initially suspended by the High Court to allow the petitioners to explore an amicable settlement through mediation, the proceedings gradually revealed a consistent pattern of non-compliance, repeated assurances without fulfilment, and breach of solemn undertakings given to the Court. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, taking serious note of this conduct, ultimately directed Rajpal Yadav to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent by 04 February 2026, marking a stern judicial response to abuse of the Court’s indulgence and erosion of the sanctity of undertakings made during judicial proceedings.

Arguments of the Petitioners (Accused):

On behalf of the petitioners, it was argued that the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ought to be viewed in the broader context of a commercial dispute which had the potential for amicable settlement rather than prolonged incarceration. The petitioners emphasized that they were not habitual offenders or hardened criminals and that the cheques in question arose out of business dealings that subsequently ran into financial difficulties. It was submitted that the High Court had earlier taken note of these circumstances and, showing leniency, suspended the sentence on 28 June 2024 to facilitate mediation and settlement. The petitioners repeatedly assured the Court of their bona fide intention to clear the outstanding dues and placed reliance on their willingness to pay a total sum of ₹2.5 crores in tranches, including an immediate payment of ₹40 lakhs followed by ₹2.10 crores within stipulated timelines. The defence sought repeated adjournments on the ground that payments were being arranged, drafts were prepared, and minor technical or typographical errors had crept into the demand drafts which required rectification. It was further urged that Rajpal Yadav, being a professional actor, had ongoing work commitments, including in Mumbai, and that sudden incarceration would cause irreparable harm to his livelihood and reputation. On these grounds, continued indulgence of the Court was sought, with assurances that the settlement amount would be honoured in letter and spirit if a final opportunity was granted.

Arguments of the Respondent (Complainant Company):

The complainant company, M/s Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd., strongly opposed any further leniency, contending that the petitioners had systematically misused the judicial process by making hollow promises only to secure suspension of sentence and repeated adjournments. It was argued that since June 2024, the petitioners had sought time on one pretext or another, each time giving unequivocal undertakings to pay specific amounts by fixed dates, and yet defaulted on every single occasion. The respondent highlighted that the petitioners had admitted their liability, the conviction under Section 138 NI Act stood affirmed at the trial stage, and the High Court’s indulgence was conditional upon compliance with payment commitments. The complainant further submitted that excuses such as typographical errors in demand drafts lacked credibility, especially when no steps were taken to correct the alleged errors, deposit the drafts with the Registrar General, or even file a formal application seeking clarification or extension. It was contended that the conduct of the petitioners undermined the sanctity of court proceedings and caused grave prejudice to the complainant, who had been deprived of its legitimate dues despite favourable judicial orders. The respondent thus urged the Court to vacate the suspension of sentence, enforce the conviction, and ensure that the petitioners faced the consequences of repeatedly breaching undertakings given to the Court.

Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, after meticulously recording the sequence of events since June 2024, came down heavily on the conduct of Rajpal Naurang Yadav, observing that it “deserves to be deprecated.” The Court noted that the suspension of sentence granted earlier was not an unconditional relief but was based on the petitioners’ own request to explore settlement and their repeated assurances of payment. Despite this, the record revealed a consistent pattern of non-compliance, where deadlines fixed by the Court were breached time and again. The Court found it particularly significant that even after assuring payment of ₹2.5 crores and specifying exact tranches, the petitioner failed to deposit ₹40 lakhs or pay ₹2.10 crores within the extended timelines. Justice Sharma rejected the explanation of typographical errors in the demand drafts, holding that it did not inspire confidence, especially since the petitioner was allegedly aware of such errors well in advance but continued to seek adjournments without taking corrective steps or approaching the Court with a bona fide application. The Court emphasized that undertakings given to a court of law are not empty formalities and cannot be treated casually, more so when they form the very basis for suspension of sentence in criminal proceedings. Observing that the petitioners had admitted liability and yet failed to honour their commitments, the Court held that there was no justification to continue the indulgence shown earlier. Accordingly, the Court directed that the amounts already deposited with the Registrar General be released in favour of the complainant company, taking note that the petitioners stood convicted and were liable to pay ₹1.35 crores in each of the seven cases. While rejecting any further extension, the Court, in the interest of justice, granted a short window and directed Rajpal Yadav to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent by 04 February 2026 at 4:00 PM to serve the sentence awarded by the Trial Court, listing the matter thereafter for compliance.