Delhi High Court: While hearing a batch of pleas filed Rajpal Yadav and his wife (‘petitioners’) challenging the order dated 29-5-2024 (‘impugned order’), whereby they had been sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Single Judge Bench of Swarna Kanta Sharma, J, deprecated the petitioners’ conduct of giving repeated assurances and failing to deposit the requisite amount. Accordingly, the Court lifted the suspension of sentence and directed Petitioner 1, Rajpal Yadav to surrender before the Jail Superintendent concerned.
Background
The petitioners were convicted by the Trial Court by a common judgment dated 29-5-2024 and were sentenced accordingly. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners had approached the Court and had urged that they were keen to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement with Respondent 1. Without examining the merits of the case, and considering the said request, the Court had suspended the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and referred the matter to mediation.
Thereafter, the suspension of sentence continued from time to time solely on the basis of the petitioners’ assurances that the settlement amount would be paid. However, for nearly one year after the suspension of sentence, no payment was made despite repeated undertakings. On 31-7-2025, the Court had recorded its concern that although the sentence had been suspended since June 2024, the petitioners had failed to deposit any amount and were enjoying the benefit of suspension without complying with their commitments.
Subsequently, the petitioners had informed the Court that partial payments would be made, and demand drafts of Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs were stated to have been prepared, though these were deposited only pursuant to a later order dated 17-10-2025. Even at that stage, a substantial amount of Rs. 9 crores remained outstanding. The petitioners had thereafter assured the Court that a further payment of Rs. 2.5 crores would be made, but the said assurance was not honoured within the stipulated time.
Over the following months, the petitioners had repeatedly sought extensions, modified payment schedules, and proposed instalment-based payments. Despite clear directions, the petitioners failed to deposit even the partial amount of Rs. 40 lakhs by the prescribed date, and the balance amount of Rs. 2.10 crores also remained unpaid. The Court had continued to grant indulgence in the interest of facilitating settlement, notwithstanding the consistent defaults.
Even after the Court’s final directions granting time to deposit the demand drafts and make the remaining payment, the petitioners had failed to comply. On the final date of hearing, it was brought to the Court’s notice that neither the demand drafts had been deposited nor the balance amount paid, and the explanation offered was that the demand drafts contained typographical errors.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court held that the conduct of Rajpal Yadav clearly demonstrated a pattern of deliberate non-compliance and disregard for the undertakings given to the Court. It observed that despite repeated assurances, multiple extensions of time, and continued suspension of sentence solely on the ground of a proposed settlement, the petitioners had failed to honour their admitted financial liability. The Court noted that indulgence had been shown on several occasions at the specific request of the petitioners and their counsel, but the same had been consistently misused to seek adjournments without any meaningful compliance.
The Court rejected the explanation offered for non-payment, including the plea of typographical errors in the demand drafts, holding that such justifications lacked credibility, particularly when no corrective steps or formal applications had been filed despite ample opportunity. It was emphasised that Rajpal Yadav was fully aware that further time was being granted only on the strength of his personal instructions and undertakings, which were repeatedly breached.
In view of the repeated defaults and the failure to adhere to the settlement terms and judicial directions, the Court held that no justification existed to continue the suspension of sentence. Consequently, the Court directed that the amounts already deposited with the Registrar General pursuant to earlier orders be released to Respondent 1 against due acknowledgement, noting that the petitioners stood convicted and that Rajpal Yadav was liable to pay Rs. 1.35 crores in each of the seven cases.
Accordingly, Rajpal Yadav was directed to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent by 4-2-2026 to serve the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. The matter was directed to be listed on 5-2-2026 for seeking compliance from the Jail Superintendent concerned.
[Rajpal Naurang Yadav v. Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd., CRL. M.C. No. 4870 of 2024, decided on 2-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Abhijat, Senior Advocate, Harshvardhan Gupta, Satyam Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondents: S.K. Sharma, Advocate