The Delhi high court on Thursday sharply criticised the conduct of Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav in a cheque-bounce case, stating that he went to prison because he refused to honour his own commitment to repay the dues on time.
The strong remarks came from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma during a bail application hearing by Yadav, seeking a suspension of his sentence due to a marriage in the family.
“You did not go to jail because the court passed an order. You have gone to jail because you have failed to comply with your own commitments,” justice Sharma said, also underlining that it was Yadav in the first place who had entered into a settlement with the complainant.
Yadav’s counsel argued that he was misguided during the proceedings and had expressed his willingness to settle the matter. But the claim was rejected by the judge, who pointed to the prolonged delay in making payments.
“You appeared 20 to 30 times in this court and were assisted by a senior counsel who made the statements on your behalf. Mr. Yadav appeared through VC (video conference) before me at least five times and said I will honour the statement made by my counsel. You are not misguided,” the bench said.
The judge also questioned Yadav’s plea seeking suspension of sentence, stating, “You have been sentenced since you pleaded guilty and admitted that you will pay. Now that you have been sentenced, you are asking for suspension of the sentence?”
{{/usCountry}}The judge also questioned Yadav’s plea seeking suspension of sentence, stating, “You have been sentenced since you pleaded guilty and admitted that you will pay. Now that you have been sentenced, you are asking for suspension of the sentence?”
{{/usCountry}}The court also pointed to the prolonged legal proceedings in this case.
“…you said you would explore settlement, went to mediation and said you would pay. For years, you didn’t make the payment. Now you want to reopen the case,” the court said.
Justice Sharma said the court may have sympathy with Yadav but this could not overcome the laid-out legal framework.
The conviction arose from a criminal complaint filed by the private firm, Messrs Murli Projects Private Limited, which alleged that Yadav took a ₹5 crore loan in 2010 for the production of the film Ata Pata Lapata, with a commitment to repay ₹8 crore. However, he allegedly failed to honour this commitment.
The firm further claimed that although the repayment was scheduled on three separate occasions, and a settlement was later reached for a reduced amount of ₹7 crore, the seven cheques issued in connection with the settlement bounced.
During Thursday’s hearing, the firm contended that Yadav could not claim he was misled because the same lawyer, who made multiple undertakings before the bench, was present for Yadav in all hearings.
The court adjourned the bail plea for further hearing on Monday after issuing notice to the complainant.